Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 535

Thread: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

  1. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It should be called the Law of Evolution. At some point the theory of gravity started being called the law of gravity, even though to this day we do don't know completely, at a subatomic particle level, exactly how gravity arises.
    You're confused. A natural law is a regularity. It's something which can be observed to happen with 100% regularity when specific conditions are in place. A theory is an evidence-backed explanation.

    So, the law of gravity is just the observation of gravity. Any theory of gravity is an attempt at explaining the root causes behind gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Evolution is as fundamental a guiding principle to understanding modern biology as gravity is to understanding modern physics.
    Genetics and heredity -- both based upon biological information -- are the guiding principles to understanding modern biology. A person can understand biology perfectly well if he understands those two aspects of it. Believing that magical invisible mutations turned pond scum into space-traveling, poetry-writing human beings is entirely unnecessary.

  2. #252
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,853
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Remind me again what logic and reason was used to write the bible?
    The accumulated logic and reason of generations of intelligent people of prescientific culture.

    Genesis is not a fairy tale. Hansel and Gretel is a fairy tale. Genesis is a creation myth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Doesn't there have to be a starting point along the lines somewhere?
    If God is an eternal being, whose existence is timeless, then, no...our need for a beginning point would just be picking some arbitrary date on which something we're involved in occurred. It would just be another point along an eternal timeline.

    As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen amen.

    --------------------
    I tell you what....my internet goes down for a few days, and there's a lot of reading to do to catch up.
    --------------------

    I have to say, as a Christian and skeptic, that I have never been that hung up on the topic of the evolution of the physical being. Scientific research into this is an ongoing process and interesting, (if frustrating...just the changes in my adulthood in our opinion on neandertal vs cromagnon vs modern vs etc etc are enough to convince you that we are still learning).

    For me, Genesis has an interesting lesson that addresses the state of humanity in relationship to God, and it's one that certainly doesn't require any measuring or lab research, but more likely introspection, life experience or meditation to understand.
    --------------------

    How long was a day in Genesis? Well, since the 24 hour day is a measure of our diurnal rotation, which we judge from sunrise to sunrise, for instance, and the sun apparently wasn't even created until the 4th 'day' or so, then the topic gets pretty silly (to me)...while still being of deadly serious importance to others who have every right to their concerns.

    ------------------------------
    I've been more interested (in recent decades) in the origin and evolution of consciousness than in the biological or cosmic (big bang) origin speculation.

    I believe this sort of 'genesis' is also addressed in the New Testament, to whit: 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god'....which can take you towards the concept of the Logos, towards Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and into all sorts of cool stuff...all of it without dissecting frogs or smelling turtles.

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

    And we beat the Hawks....this argues for intelligent design.
    Last edited by kester99; 05-04-2013 at 05:52 AM.
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kester99 For This Useful Post:


  4. #253
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,259

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by kester99 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The accumulated logic and reason of generations of intelligent people of prescientific culture.
    ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...

  5. #254
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...
    ...which is eerily similar, at least in substance, to how Darwinists believe we got here.

    The monkeys aimlessly wailing away on the keyboards represent the blind forces of nature and chemistry, and the novel being the gigabyte after gigabyte of biological information within our genomes.

  6. #255
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,853
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...
    This is you talking about your ancestors. But if that's how you feel...

    And of course, it's not like that at all, anyway.
    Every early culture had a creation myth of some sort handed down through generations. They help define a people. They teach lessons.

    If you think others are ignorant for confusing them with real scientific descriptions, then you might as well stop it also. They aren't science. There is a difference between factual and true, however.

    And having said that your analogy was false, I'll say I can see some truth too...because we are primates, and we collectively 'write' our cultural myths. Doesn't make us chumps, or chimps.
    Last edited by kester99; 05-04-2013 at 07:09 AM.
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kester99 For This Useful Post:


  8. #256
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,259

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kester99 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is you talking about your ancestors. But if that's how you feel...

    And of course, it's not like that at all, anyway.
    Every early culture had a creation myth of some sort handed down through generations. They help define a people. They teach lessons.

    If you think others are ignorant for confusing them with real scientific descriptions, then you might as well stop it also. They aren't science. There is a difference between factual and true, however.

    And having said that your analogy was false, I'll say I can see some truth too...because we are primates, and we collectively 'write' our cultural myths. Doesn't make us chumps, or chimps.
    ...except we're not discussing great historical myths in proper context. This is a thread on the history/origin of life. In that context, genesis has zero relevance.

    2,000 years from now, I hope that humanity looks the same way at a lot of our unproven theories.

    You said it yourself. they aren't science. so.....why is genesis even being referenced in this thread? Because a lot of people don't treat it that way.

    If we were discussing proper methods of cultivating crops of corn, and I advocated sacrificing two virgins every season, citing "the combined logic and reason of our ancestors," would that be taken seriously?
    Last edited by Kstat; 05-04-2013 at 12:21 PM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:


  10. #257
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I think kester does make a good point that there's a difference between 'it's not supported by scientific fact as of today's date' and 'it's not true'.

  11. #258
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,853
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You said it yourself. they aren't science. so.....why is genesis even being referenced in this thread? Because a lot of people don't treat it that way.
    I don't recall anyone from the antiDarwin camp in this thread holding out a strict interpretation of Genesis as the truth on the matter. Perhaps they did and I missed it. I'm still trying to catch up 5 or 6 pages I missed. But I do recall several dismissive snipes at the book, and those were what I was replying to.

    I believe we are in agreement as to what it is and what it isn't. I was ceretainly not holding Genesis up as an answer to the OP. I'm a science guy as well as a Christian. I don't even buy the I.D. approach.

    It was the contemptuous direction you took when you asked what logic or reason went into the Bible that prompted my remarks. You didn't even say 'Genesis.' You said 'Bible.'

    Maybe you just got carried away in the heat of discourse.
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  12. #259
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,853
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think kester does make a good point that there's a difference between 'it's not supported by scientific fact as of today's date' and 'it's not true'.
    I wasn't even going there so much as holding out for the merit of the truth in morality tales and such. They're not meant to be factual, but to teach other sorts of truth. Like the story of GWash 'fessing up to chopping down the cherry tree teaches honesty and taking responsibility for one's actions, even though the incident never occurred.
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kester99 For This Useful Post:


  14. #260
    - .-- ... ... Natston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Centralia, Pennsylvania
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,386
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Here is another way of explaining what Kester is saying imo...

    It should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII,*Providentissimus Deus*18).*
    * Most Humorous Poster Nominee (2004, 2005, 2010)
    * Off Topic Post of the Year Winner (2009)
    * Off Topic Thread of the Year Nominee (2010)


    Formerly a naturallystoned, badinfluence...

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Natston For This Useful Post:


  16. #261

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Believing that magical invisible mutations turned pond scum into space-traveling, poetry-writing human beings is entirely unnecessary.
    You are the only one who regards natural genetic mutations, which occur in the fertilization of every egg with every sperm, as being magic or invisible. They are neither.

    It may cause you some distress that they are random, but they are real. I suppose my situation is not all that abnormal in that my wife bore three children and sadly had three miscarriages. Most likely all three miscarriages were triggered by embryonic-lethal genetic mutations. My three children that were born happily have a host of apparent mutations from the parental genes that manifest in endearing personality traits that distinguish them from their parents, such as my daughter's deep passion for performing classical music.

    These one generation mutations may seem small and trivial, but again we are talking a lifespan equaling less than a blink of an eye in the one year calendar that is the history of everything.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  17. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Oh, mutations exist. That wasn't in question. My comment referred to the widespread belief that random mutations are the engineers of life; the creative force behind the design found throughout the living word.

    I'll let you in on a little secret: Mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, to the point where the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations is still in question due to the rarity of the latter. Even those mutations considered to be neutral aren't truly neutral, but harmful, albeit very minutely.

    The end result is genetic entropy, which is the accumulation of harmful mutations leading to the degradation the genome. It's basically the same principle as Darwinism -- the accumulation of mutations -- only it's based in reality, not ignorance and superstition. It's the degradation of life based on the fact that mutations are harmful, rather than the engineering of life based on the superstition that mutations possess immense creative power.

    It's the nonexistence of these mutations that lead to me referring to them as "magical invisible mutations."

  18. #263

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Mutations are not overwhelmingly harmful. Most mutations lead to nothing. And so many mutations lead to changes that aren't "harmful" but you just don't notice because, well, they aren't harmful.

    I think the world is flat.
    Last edited by Suaveness; 05-06-2013 at 02:16 PM.
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

  19. #264

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Why do embryonic whales have limb buds that resemble the embryonic forms of mammalian legs?

    Why so whale flippers have the internal structure of mammalian hands?



    why do embyonic whales have facial hair?

    Why do they have a vestigial pelvis?


    ---
    These are just many simple-to-understand natural consequences of macroevolution occurring, as land mammals gave rise to new species of aquatic descendants over eons of time.

    Of course in chapter 14 of Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that such conservation of structures and traits would be found, like our tailbones which remain from our tree-dwelling ancestors, our wisdom teeth and appendix that remain from our herbivore past, and numerous other examples found all over the animal kingdom, even at the molecular level.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013 at 03:35 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  20. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is all I really read from you. I hear you attacking the holes in Darwinian evolution, but I never hear a legitimate, scientific argument for Intelligent Design.
    All you had to do is ask.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can play that game too: "Intelligent Design theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. 'I don't understand how it happens and science hasn't explained it yet, therefore, God an intelligent agent must have done it.' You could replace all of their arguments with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of their arguments."
    Incorrect. I'll elucidate more down below, since you pretty much repeat this same argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The key thing here, is that Intelligent Design simply is not science.
    It might not conform to your dogma-fueled definition of science (the search for truth, as long as that truth fits into my worldview), but it does the real definition of science (the search for truth, period, regardless of our presuppositions).


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It fails to qualify as a scientific theory.
    Yes, it does. It's based on observation, it pleads to a force known to exist within nature (read: it's not supernatural, as idiots claim), it's testable, and it's falsifiable in theory (I'd argue it's not falsifiable in practice due to it being true).

    It fulfills every requirement of a scientific theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It asserts a conclusion that is not scientifically testable or sustained by further explanation.
    Here's something that I'd say no more than one-in-a-thousand people who partake in this debate actually grasp, that I actually learned from reading the great atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel: Abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution and intelligent design are inherently linked.

    What do I mean by that? It's simple. The two ideas are simply the opposite sides of the same coin. They are the opposing answers to the same question -- Is there design in biology?

    Thus, if one isn't testable, then neither is the other. You can't test for one without testing for the other; it's logically impossible. Any test that will strengthen one will weaken the other.

    Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is design free will weaken the idea that biology is designed.
    Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is designed will weaken the idea that biology is design-free.

    Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
    Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.

    Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. You can't reasonably say that no design is testable/provable/falsifiable while saying that design isn't testable/provable/falsifiable, yet this is exactly what people like Aw Heck (including many academics and scientists) do. It's nuttiness.

    Every single test for abiogenesis is inherently a test for I.D. Every single time a scientist attempts to prove that life originated via some chemical soup, absent any design or purpose, he's attempting to falsify I.D.

    Every single time a scientists attempts to prove that evolution is an ateleological process (no design), he's attempting to falsify biological teleology (design).

    So, not only is I.D. not untestable, it's been tested repeatedly for decades now. It's past every single test with flying colors, which is why I support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It hasn't proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. It's a position devoted almost entirely to attacking Darwinian evolution. It's the "God of the gaps" argument, which argues that because there are gaps in scientific knowledge, this MUST be evidence or proof for the existence of God.
    See above.

    I.D. claims that the basis of life, biological information, is artificial, rather than natural, based on our experience of what produces information. This claim can be tested via any test which attempts to demonstrate nature producing biological information from scratch, as would be required with the origin of life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    "Welp, we can't explain this yet. Must be God." and "This biological structure looks and operates like a machine! Wait a minute...machines are MADE! But only intelligent beings make machines. Machines don't occur naturally. Oh wait, I got it. God!" is all I really hear from ID proponents.
    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you'd better have damn good evidence if you're going to say it's not a duck. Biology looks designed, and is full of design principles, so until somebody proves how it came to be, absent design, it's completely reasonable to call it design. Common sense 101.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course, ID proponents don't acutally use the term "God" because then they wouldn't be able to get ID into public school textbooks. Interesting that the term "intelligent design," as we know it today, popped up shortly after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, which ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools was unconstitutional.
    If you're going the copy-and-paste route, you really should find smarter sources than Wikipedia.

    The term intelligent design traces back centuries. In its modern usage, it traces back to Sir Fred Hoyle in the late 1970's. Coincidentally (or not), Hoyle also coined the term big bang.

    What you're referring to, albeit in a fragmented, confused fashion, is the book Of Pandas & Panda. It's the book where the term creationism was replaced with the phrase design proponent. This was highlighted by Darwinists who pointed out the term cdesignproponentist appears in the book -- and obvious search-and-replace gaffe. Their claim was that this proves creationism and intelligent design are one-and-the-same, and the term was switched as a result of the aforementioned court case.

    There's just one problem with this claim: It's demonstrably wrong.

    I say this based on two facts. One, the term design proponent was used in the drafts of the book, prior to the court ruling. I know things like

    Two (and this is the big one) if you actually LOOK AT THE CONTEXT in which the term is used, it's clearly not being used in the same sense that the term creationism is typically used, which is an appeal to Biblical six-day creationism. In fact, the authors of the book explicitly reject bringing religion into science, and insist

    One of my favorite authors, the brilliant Casey Luskin, has an article knocking this dishonest myth out of the ballpark, including scans of the book which clearly show that any usage of the word creation/creationism was used in an entirely Constitutional, scientific manner, not as an appeal to supernaturalism nor the Bible, as the sleazebuckets trying to keep biology in the Dark Ages claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Luskin
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, making it clear that from the beginning, their project did not advocate what the courts have defined as "creationism":










    In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator. The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

    ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural--before the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator." ID was not "masterminded" by an attorney, but formulated by a scientist who understood information theory and "want[ed] to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."

    Barbara Forrest's theory about the origins of ID was wrong. Stay tuned for the next five posts in this series which will provide further critique for Barbara Forrest's style of argumentation.


    So, not only are Darwinists wrong (as usual), but their version is the exact opposite of the truth: The creationism-to-design-proponent switch wasn't to hide the fact that I.D. and creationism are the same, but to make it clear that they are NOT the same.

    Let's also not forget that I'm both an I.D. proponent and areligious. Thus, I, myself, refute the notion that I.D. is Biblical creationism or motivated by Christianity.

    The question remains: Why do Darwinists stoop to this level of dishonesty?

    The answer: It's all they've got. If they could refute I.D. based on what it actually is and says, they would, but they can't, so they must intentionally conflate it with Biblical creationism. This does two things:

    (i) It allows them to motive monger. By claiming that I.D. is just Biblical creationism, they can claim that I.D. proponents are motivated entirely by their religion, not science, and use that to attack I.D. and I.D. proponents' credibility.

    (ii) It's a straw man argument. By claiming that I.D. is just Biblical creationism, they can refute it with the same arguments they use to refute Biblical creationism; arguments about the age of the Earth, common descent, speciation, etc.

    It's all a load of crap.

    If you believe that the age of the Earth refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.
    If you believe that speciation refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.
    If you believe that whale flippers having a similar structure to mamallian hands refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.

    I could go on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And in the 2005, teaching intelligent design in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal case. The judge in the case, John E. Jones III (a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, by the way), wrote in his ruling, "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." (You can read the ruling here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf)
    First of all, the Dover ruling was limited to the Dover distract; it has no bearing on anything outside of that small Pennsylvania county. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Secondly, the demarcation problem has troubled philosophers of science for centuries now. Shockingly enough, it hasn't been solved by a judge with zero training in either science or philosophy. For those unaware, the demarcation problem is the problem of figuring out what is and is not science, and what standards should be used to make that ruling. It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as most Internet pseudo-scientists think it is. Just Google it if you want to learn more.

    Thirdly, and this one's kind of hilarious, it was discovered that the judge copied his ruling from the ACLU's briefing, completely with nonfactual claims and typographical errors (). I'm neither an attorney nor a judge, but I know this is bad for two reasons (more Roman numerals on the way).

    (i) It strongly creates the impression that the judge is activating for one side of the issue. Bias isn't thought highly of in the judicial circuit.

    (ii) It strongly creates the impression that the judge couldn't justify his own ruling in his own words, which, in turn, calls into question the credibility of that ruling. If a judge is too ignorant on a subject to be able to elucidate his ruling on that subject, then he has no business making the ruling in the first place. Simply put: The demarcation problem, specifically as it deals with the question of whether or not there is design in biology, is a matter for philosophers of science to determine, not some slack-jawed judge whose expertise on the subject is limited to copy-and-paste.

    Dover was, what, seven-and-a-half years ago? Yeah, it's time to get over it. I.D. remains alive and well, and it grows stronger with each and every discovery which furthers reveals the design of life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you haven't already, I encourage you all to watch the PBS documentary about this case, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI).To save GRH some time rebutting that case, you can just go here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879 .
    If you want to remain in the dark about what's up for debate, watch the PBS documentary. If you're prefer to be educated on the subject, and want to know the actual I.D. arguments from I.D. proponents themselves, read the following articles:

    Quote Originally Posted by Casey Luskin
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As their birthday gift to Charles Darwin, yesterday many PBS stations apparently re-aired the "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" movie that they first released in November, 2007. The "documentary" purports to re-tell the story of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, but it portrays an extremely inaccurate, biased, and one-sided view of the case. In this regard, below are some links to responses to the "Judgment Day" that Discovery Institute produced when it first came out in 2007:


    Better yet, do what I do and make the entire Evolution News & Views blog a regular stop. It's brilliant; name any anti-I.D. claim and it's very likely already refuted it with facts and flawless logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aw Heck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Again, this is all fine if you believe it. Some of you have stated that God cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken on faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't try to argue that it is science.
    Design is distinguishable from natural occurrences; it's how you're able to recognize the text you're reading right now from pure noise, for one.

    This distinction is what makes attempting to recognize design in any avenue a valid scientific proposal, including in biology.

  21. #266

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    more succinctly:

    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  23. #267
    Member naptownmenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    4,648

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I always found the explanation of the 'chemical soup' creating the first life on earth to be dubious. From what I recall reading, scientists have been trying for decades if not centuries to purposefully replicate that soup and failed. So why on earth would I decide that it happened on accident to begin with? Sounds like gap filling to me. Not that it couldn't be true, just that I think it currently requires a lot of faith, given what I just said about their purposeful attempts.
    Hicks, you hit the nail on the head.

    Whether you fall more toward the side that something arose from nothing and by chance or that there was a systematic creator, it takes a large measure of faith.

    One of the biggest problems for Scientists is that despite their best efforts, they have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. They might be able to generate some amino acids and proteins but they cannot replicate or really explain how complex cells came into existence other than to say they happened by chance or that they evolved. This leaves a lot of gaps science has been unable to fill with tangible proof.

    Taken from the publication "The Origins of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking":

    "Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have
    found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine. Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

    All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith."
    Last edited by naptownmenace; 05-06-2013 at 04:38 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    GOOD GOD THAT'S LARRY BIRD'S MUSIC!

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to naptownmenace For This Useful Post:


  25. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Suaveness View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mutations are not overwhelmingly harmful. Most mutations lead to nothing.
    Yes, they are, it's just that the harmfulness is so minor and so unapparent that they're incorrectly labeled as being neutral. The more accurate label would be near-neutral.

    Think of it this way:

    You have a 1,000-page book. During the printing of that book, an error took place, and accidentally added extra characters into one of the sentences within that book.

    Is that error harmful, beneficial, or neutral to the book?

    If you said neutral, then you are incorrect.

    No, it wasn't a huge error, and no, it didn't harm the overwhelming majority of the 1,000-page book, but it harmed it, nonetheless.

    The same logic applies to mutations in biology. Most don't lead to catastrophic harm, no, but they're still degrading the genome.

    Now, here's where things get interesting: Natural selection works on the entire organism, not individual traits. Nature doesn't take an organism, find any beneficial mutations, keep them, and then throw away the rest. Nature selects the entire organism, which means taking the bad with the good.

    When you combine the above fact with the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, including near-neutral mutations, you've got a huge problem. You have an accumulation of mutations, passed on from generation to generation, with the overwhelming majority of them being harmful. The end result is a gradual degradation of the genome -- genetic entropy.

    If you're not getting what I'm saying, let me try to make it clearer.

    You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,999 of them harmful, and 1 beneficial.

    That 1 beneficial mutation may provide a reproductive advantage, but those 9,999 harmful mutations will be passed on along with that 1 beneficial mutation. The offspring of that organism will not only have those 9,999 harmful mutations passed along, he'll also be subjected to mutations himself, which, if we keep the same rate, will end with a total of of 19,998 harmful mutations, and 2 beneficial mutations. Rinse and repeat, generation by generation/

    See how quickly the bad ends up completely swamping any good? This is random mutation in a nutshell, and you can see why it's such a destructive force.

    Darwinists believe this destructive force somehow created us. They believe that mutations repeatedly lucked into the right sequences of DNA to produce functional proteins, and these functional proteins self-assembled into the nanomachinery of the cell, which in turn accumulated to produce the technological marvels that are you, me, and everyone who has ever lived, as well as every living creature, past and present.


    Quote Originally Posted by Suaveness View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And so many mutations lead to changes that aren't "harmful" but you just don't notice because, well, they aren't harmful.
    Well, no, we've been over this. Most mutations are near-neutral (but still harmful), some are catastrophically harmful, and a very, very, very select few are beneficial.

    The fascinating thing is that even when beneficial, mutations tend to be deleterious. What I mean is that these beneficial mutations aren't building up new traits, they're simply damaging preexisting ones, which, as strange as it may seem, can be beneficial in certain circumstances. This is how bacterial resistance works, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Suaveness View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the world is flat.
    You might as well. I mean, you hold a silly, archaic view of biology, so you might as well hold a silly, archaic view of geology, too.

  26. #269

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    Think of it this way:

    You have a 1,000-page book. During the printing of that book, an error took place, and accidentally added extra characters into one of the sentences within that book.

    Is that error harmful, beneficial, or neutral to the book?

    If you said neutral, then you are incorrect.

    No, it wasn't a huge error, and no, it didn't harm the overwhelming majority of the 1,000-page book, but it harmed it, nonetheless.
    Every word of every book gets read, which is the fatal flaw in your analogy. A mistake leaves a change in meaning.

    The vast majority of genes are not transcribed. Totally silent.

    You are not harmed in the least by mutations in your silent gene sequences that in your tree-dwelling hunter ancestors gave you a tail, more grippy toes, better smell, or thicker fur. You are not harmed in the least by mutations in your silent gene sequences that in your primordial ocean-dwelling ancestors gave you more buoyancy or more efficient gill slits. We know these genes. They exist. They are silent.

    So a better analogy is that your thousand page book was forever ignored by all of humanity except for a single sentence on page 524. Changing a word at random in that book is very unlikely to alter that one key sentence on page 524.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013 at 05:09 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  28. #270

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,999 of them harmful, and 1 beneficial.
    You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,995 of them neutral, 4 harmful, and 1 beneficial.

    That's more in line with reality.

    Every once in a great while a beneficial trait emerges. If it's a real doozy and gives a survival advantage, then of course it becomes dominant, often in only a few dozen generations.

    We see such survival mutations happening all the time even on our timescale of almost nothing. A species of yellow butterfly has a mutation to make a brown version, but the brown version isn't recognized by a predator for whatever reason (maybe it lives near a sooty factory?),

    then a few dozens of generations later later you just have oldtimers showing you yellow butterflies they captured when they were kids, but having the same genome as a whole species / population of living brown butterflies that were descended from them.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013 at 04:59 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  30. #271

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    more succinctly:

    That about sums it up.

    I would type up a response to GRH, but it's just a waste of time and energy. I'll save a few pages of thread:

    Me: Refutation

    GRH: That's wrong. You're just quoting dogma that fits your worldview. I am not quoting dogma, of course. I just support something also supported by Answers in Genesis, that's all. You like fake science. MY science is real. You're a moron.

    rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.

    I'm done. Go Pacers.

    WE ARE NOT GETTING ERIC GORDON

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Aw Heck For This Useful Post:


  32. #272
    The light, not the lie. kester99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Disgusta, GA
    Posts
    8,853
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
    Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.

    Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. You can't reasonably say that no design is testable/provable/falsifiable while saying that design isn't testable/provable/falsifiable, yet this is exactly what people like Aw Heck (including many academics and scientists) do. It's nuttiness.
    Any test that validates that the earth is globe-shaped falsify the earth being flat.
    Any test that validates the earth being flat will falsify that the earth is globe-shaped.

    Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. ....yet this is exactly what people like
    Henry the Navigator (including many academics and scientists and cartographers) do. It's nuttiness.

    Flawless logic FTW.

    The logic shows that one or the other can be true, but not both....all I'm saying.
    Last edited by kester99; 05-06-2013 at 05:24 PM.
    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  33. #273
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why do embryonic whales have limb buds that resemble the embryonic forms of mammalian legs?

    Why so whale flippers have the internal structure of mammalian hands?



    why do embyonic whales have facial hair?

    Why do they have a vestigial pelvis?


    ---
    These are just many simple-to-understand natural consequences of macroevolution occurring, as land mammals gave rise to new species of aquatic descendants over eons of time.

    Of course in chapter 14 of Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that such conservation of structures and traits would be found, like our tailbones which remain from our tree-dwelling ancestors, our wisdom teeth and appendix that remain from our herbivore past, and numerous other examples found all over the animal kingdom, even at the molecular level.
    What's the thinking behind the pace of such changes? Why are whales still whales but we're humans? Is the theory that their lives developed much later on than ours, so they're behind our curve? Are whales then projected to evolve into land dwellers in X billion years?

  34. #274
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    more succinctly:

    Well, gee, with such a well thought out, elaborate, point by point refutation like this, how could anyone possibly still assume GRH is onto something?

    This was a really weak choice for a response IMO. It makes it look like you have no arguments left.

  35. #275
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by kester99 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any test that validates that the earth is globe-shaped falsify the earth being flat.
    Any test that validates the earth being flat will falsify that the earth is globe-shaped.

    Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. ....yet this is exactly what people like
    Henry the Navigator (including many academics and scientists and cartographers) do. It's nuttiness.

    Flawless logic FTW.

    The logic shows that one or the other can be true, but not both....all I'm saying.
    I'm not sure I understand this; are you disagreeing with this logic? As I see it, science is a tool for obtaining knowledge, not the actual knowledge itself, therefore whenever you apply the tool towards deciding an either/or scenario (world flat, world round), inevitably if done correctly it's going to support one and falsify the other, right? What's wrong with that?

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. The Evolution of Roy Hibbert
    By pizza guy in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 07:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •