Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 535

Thread: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

  1. #426
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,205
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I only asked about publications as a nosey busybody. Just curious. In 40 years of "research" I had 2 papers published in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics. My last few attempts at publication were disallowed by our legal dept. as being proprietary in nature. My last attempt involved identification and quantitation of a certain hormone...yada yada. It was disallowed but my boss was allowed to take my work....retitle it and present it as a poster presentation in San Francisco six months later. I rec'd no credit for the work he presented and so I quit trying (last I heard he was a Division Director).

    BTW...all of the work he presented I had completed before he joined the company and I was asked to train him.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  2. #427

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I was looking over this thread, and was disappointed. Kstat and cdash said it best,

    I think you can have a discussion contained to the origins of earth and life on earth without getting into the existence or acts of god. There are a mountain of facts to go on. If you tried to stretch it past that to the start of the universe itself, however, then it becomes unavoidable. As CDash said, ultimately "where did that come from" is a question with infinite answers.
    And this post is why America is still so behind on Science Education compared to modern countries:

    Quote Originally Posted by BearBugs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And in response to those whom say that the bible "can not be the word of God" or is "heresy" I say to you, all of scientology has no proof. While the Bible has much proof. How about the prophecies written hundreds to thousands of years before the events happened? How about the proof that Jesus Christ did indeed live? How about the Ark of the Covenant that is hidden somewhere in the middle east? There is so much proof that the bible was indeed written with the inspiration of the most high God and it's sad that so many people search for the truth when God is standing right beside you calling your name.
    Come on.

  3. #428
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,205
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    America is so far behind in science and math because even the brightest hs students today refuse to do homework. If it can't be done during class they won't do it.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  4. #429
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    There's only one archaic book of myths being taught as valid science in the modern classroom, and that's On the Origin of Species. If we want to place the blame for America's plummeting scientific literacy rates anywhere, it should be there.

    Sadly, we have scientists and students alike who are ignorant of, or even hostile to, 21st-century biology, including people in this thread, because it clearly disproves the ideas propagated throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. That's no way for science to progress. What's even sadder is these people are trying to keep critical thinking out of the science classroom in an attempt at keeping the next generation of scientists -- today's students -- equally ignorant of, and hostile to, modern biology. These people, not the Biblical literalists, are the true threats to science.


    *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, if you prefer the full, blatantly racist title.

  5. #430
    Can see thru wooden doors dal9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,895

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    ^what's the hip thing to say instead of "cool story, bro" nowadays?

  6. #431
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,377

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. So in Hebrew the context gives meaning to the word. In this case the context does not support the conclusion that each creative period was a 24 hour day.


    The Bible doesn’t say how long each creative day was, however there are things we can deduce that logically indicate the creative days were longer than 24 hours.


    The first example is the first words of the Bible which say, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ The Bible doesn’t say how long it took God to do this, however, science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. So God had apparently been creating for eons before turning to an earth which verse 2 says ‘was formless and waste.”’


    The point? Do you think during all these billions of years God was holding himself to 24 hour work periods? That's totally unlikely, so why think so just because on the first creative day God created a 24 hour time period for the earth? By insisting a 24 hour time period is what was meant by the word day, you are actually holding God to a time period he created for man's use, not his own.


    Another example found in Genesis the 2nd chapter. Before Eve’s creation the Bible says that God began bringing to Adam all the creatures he had formed and let the man decide on a name for each one. The point I want to draw attention to is that when God brought Eve to meet him, Adam said,“This is 'at last' bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.”


    Adam’s words, ‘at last’ apparently indicates that he had waited for some time to receive his counterpart of the opposite sex.


    The account further shows Adam didn’t just arbitrarily call Eve ‘woman,’ we know he reasoned on it because he tells us why he settled on that name, “because from man this one was taken.”


    This means he likely had a reason for giving all living things their names too. For example he probably said something like, ‘this one will be called a dog, for such and such reason.”


    All this indicates it’s very unlikely Adam did this in one day. Remember too, Adam wouldn’t have had a full 24 hour day to name everything. For example, you would have to subtract his sleeping hours and other daily requirments.


    Another point, the Bible says at the end of all the creative days, ‘And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day, a second day, a third day, etc. Chapter one of Genesis ends with the words, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.”

    However, nowhere in the Bible do you find a closure for the 7th day, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a seventh day.”


    Genesis the second chapter starts with these words, “Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.


    Did you notice what it says about God on the 7th day? It says, “he has been resting from all his (creative) work,” indicating the 7th day was still ongoing when Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wrote the Genesis account some 1,500 years after creation.


    There’s more evidence to indicate God’s rest day is still ongoing. Consider Jesus’ words to opposers who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath, which they construed as a form of work. Instead of disputing whether it was work or not Jesus said, “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” (John 5:16, 17)


    What was the point of Jesus words? Jesus was being accused of working on the Sabbath. His reply: “My Father has kept working” answered that charge. In effect, Jesus was saying since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath, (The 7th day) it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath.’ Thus, Jesus implied that as regards the earth, God’s great Sabbath day of rest, the seventh day, had not ended in his day.


    There’s more, but I think it’s already clear that rather than the earth being created in 24 hour time periods, the days are most likely much longer.


    A thought. If someone still believes God created the earth in 24 hour time periods, did he just work in the day time, or did he work at night too?
    Story of Genesis that appears in the Bible that you all have been quoting... Its actually a blend of 2 different popular creation stories! With 2 different references to God's name. Eloheim and Yahweh. Come on Moses! Judaism has a long history of being polytheistic. I do not understand why so many put so much faith and credence into these stories as some sort of actual record of the human race when all throughout history they were influenced by the political leanings of Kings and the religious oligarchies of their times. And to think some of you are basing your scientific arguments on such stories? I mean seriously Kings actually forced Monotheism on the Jewish world and then the next King brought back polytheism and it went back and forth like this for hundreds of years at a time. The story of Genesis was being changed and added to 700 years after Moses death. So much about the world changes in 700 years. Just think about the various religions that came before yours. Why would you think your theism was any more accurate than those that came before? Because some emperor or King declared it was? LOL.

    I think its like the ultimate catch 22 for religious beliefs as fact. Everyone ignores the Geo-political happenings of the time and how they changed the very nature of the religion. Heck modern day Judaism and Christianity practically owes its existence to the Persians. People act like these religious texts and teachings existed in a vacuum, and always have.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

  7. #432
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,205
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I take it you put no credence to oral tradition.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  8. #433

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I take it you put no credence to oral tradition.
    My apologies in advance, but ..............


  9. #434

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    A leading creationist, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, comes clean:

    The science behind evolution is sound; Creationism and intelligent design have nothing to do with science, but we should believe some form of it/them anyway, since the Bible seems to say we should.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-anyway-video/
    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!)

  10. #435
    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
    A leading creationist, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, comes clean:

    The science behind evolution is sound; Creationism and intelligent design have nothing to do with science, but we should believe some form of it/them anyway, since the Bible seems to say we should.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-anyway-video/
    Ah, yes, the I.D. = Biblical creationism lie. Funny, I'm an ardent defender of I.D., yet am areligious and certainly not a Biblical creationist. Apparently, either I've been led astray, or somebody on the anti-I.D. side is telling fibs.

    Spoiler: It's the latter.

    The reality is, the arguments and evidence for I.D. cannot be defeated on their own merit, so those who argue against it must do so through deception. By conflating I.D. with Biblical creationism, they can create the illusion that they've refuted I.D. by refuting Biblical creationist ideas; the six-thousand-year-old Earth, or by showing minor change in a species (which, funnily enough, creationists don't even argue against). Furthermore, by conflating I.D. and Biblical creationists, they can paint I.D. proponents as religious fanatics fighting science. In reality, Darwinists are the true religious fanatics (see the lunacy regarding removing Darwin from the pound in my post above), and it's I.D. proponents who are arguing with 21st-century science.

    By the way, at no point in either the article or the video the article's based on did Ken Ham mention I.D. That's an intentional false attribution (read: a sleazy lie) on Slick's part.

    Also, the article is full of dishonesty, shockingly enough. For one thing, the bills that have been introduced in Tennessee and Louisiana promote academic freedom, not creationism. That is, they allow teachers to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses for evolution without fear of legal repercussions, and they explicitly and clearly forbid the promotion of religion. What Darwinists have done is made it so that discussing any weaknesses with evolution is synonymous with teaching Biblical creationism, which they then use legal chicanery to silence. It's a nice little setup, isn't? "You can only say GOOD things about my beliefs. Pointing out its decencies is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Get the ACLU on the phone!" It's a clever little scheme to protect their beliefs from critical thinking and to continue to make sure students are indoctrinated with their beliefs, isn't it?

    It's sad that science education has gotten to the point where critical thinking in the classroom can bring about lawsuits, but then, these are the same people who want to rape and murder a woman because she was a part of removing Charles Darwin from the 10-pound note. I think it's safe to say we're not dealing with sane, civilized people here, but religious (atheistic abiogenesis-Darwinism) nuts.

    It's even more sad to think that Slick is one of them.

  11. #436

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    This thread just makes me shake my head
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Suaveness For This Useful Post:


  13. #437

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    No, it's sad that science education has gotten to the point where huge amounts of taxpayer dollars fund people who seriously teach kids that people once rode on dinosaurs, ignorance spread through the aid of voucher programs

    Florida is #1 by a mile, sadly, though Indiana and Ohio deserve mention as northern states that give Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and Louisiana a run for their money as runners-up in the "teaching crap as science" department. I would guess that Texas & NC withheld their data somehow, assuming that they even have a voucher program. It's a cool map. Zoom in on a location and find out many of the "mission statements" publicly released by these schools who are pouring your dollars into teaching, basically, that 2 + 2 =5 because a book we like says so.

    http://billmoyers.com/content/intera...g-creationism/



    But kudos to Ball State University for speaking the truth about so-called intelligent design

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2...lligent-design

    Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” President Jo Ann Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science.


    The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013 at 09:28 AM.
    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!)

  14. #438
    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 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 pretty sure I've answered this before, but it's worth pointing out again.

    The logic is flawless. If A can be proven, than not-A can be falsified, and vice versa. If you prove that the Earth is globe-shaped, you will have falsified the claim that the Earth is flat (assuming you don't resort to definitional or other trickery).

    Your problem is, you believe that ideas which have been falsified don't quality as science. This is wrong. If something is testable, it qualifies as science. The Earth being flat was testable, and it's since been falsified, thus, it's science. It falls under the classification of failed/falsified hypothesis.

    The point is, questions have both affirmations and negations, and testing for one will inherently test for the other, while proving one will disprove (falsify) the other.

    For example: Is my wife pregnant?

    Affirmation: Yes, my wife is pregnant.
    Negation: No, my wife is not pregnant.

    An accurate pregnancy test will test for both. It will either come back positive, proving the affirmation and falsifying the negation, or it will come back negative, proving the negation and falsifying the affirmation.

    What the anti-I.D. crowd claims is that the negation to the question "Is there actual design in biology?" is science, but the affirmation is not. It just doesn't work. You can't accurately test for a proposition and have that test not apply to both the affirmation and the negation of that proposition. A pregnancy test can't prove my wife is pregnant while not simultaneously proving that she's not not pregnant.

    These people are not serious thinkers, and they're not motivated by truth or scientific progress.

  15. #439
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    More apparent dishonesty from Slick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, it's sad that science education has gotten to the point where huge amounts of taxpayer dollars fund people who seriously teach kids that people once rode on dinosaurs, ignorance spread through the aid of voucher programs

    Florida is #1 by a mile, sadly, though Indiana and Ohio deserve mention as northern states that give Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and Louisiana a run for their money as runners-up in the "teaching crap as science" department. I would guess that Texas & NC withheld their data somehow, assuming that they even have a voucher program. It's a cool map. Zoom in on a location and find out many of the "mission statements" publicly released by these schools who are pouring your dollars into teaching, basically, that 2 + 2 =5 because a book we like says so.

    http://billmoyers.com/content/intera...g-creationism/
    The report dealt with private schools and parochial schools, which are, according to Wikipedia, religious schools which are financed almost entirely due to voluntary donations, rather than taxpayer money.

    Not exactly your run-of-the-mill taxpayer-funded public schools like Slick is trying to paint them out to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    [But kudos to Ball State University for speaking the truth about so-called intelligent design

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2...lligent-design
    Ball State embarrassing themselves has been thoroughly covered by my favorite blog. There's quite a few related articles there, including glowing praise from the professors students, including nonreligious students. Anyone interested in this case owes it to themselves to read those articles.

    As for the quote Slick (quite a suitable username) posted, John G. West put it brilliantly:

    Ball State President's Orwellian Attack on Academic Freedom - Evolution News & Views

    Jo Ann Gora, President of Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana, has weighed in on the subject of intelligent design, declaring that science faculty can't say that intelligent design is science in science classes. Incredibly, Gora insists that her university's "commitment to academic freedom is unflinching," even while she imposes a gag order on science faculty who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.

    Memo to President Gora: Academic freedom was designed to protect dissenting and unpopular views among faculty. That's the whole point. Redefining it as the "freedom" to teach only the majority view isn't academic freedom; it's a power play right out of the pages of George Orwell's 1984. Gora's statement makes a mockery of true academic freedom. It also exposes Gora as a complete hypocrite on the subject. Nearly a decade ago, she and her university went to the mat defending the academic freedom of a left-wing peace studies professor with controversial views. Now it turns out that their commitment to academic freedom is a sham: Academic freedom at Ball State apparently only means the right to teach views the university administration agrees with.

    Of course, the context for Gora's remarks is the continuing controversy over BSU physicist Eric Hedin, under attack by the extremist Freedom from Religion Foundation because he may have covered the issue of intelligent design as part of his "Boundaries of Science" seminar. Although Gora doesn't mention Hedin, the university issued a companion statement that said:
    Provost Terry King and Professor Hedin have both reviewed the panel's findings and are working together to ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline. The university is particularly appreciative for Dr. Hedin's active participation and cooperation during this process. His academic credentials are an asset to the university. He remains an important and valued member of our physics and astronomy department.
    The statement about Hedin is notable for how little it actually says. And President Gora's statement, far from clarifying matters, adds more confusion:

    1. Hedin's honors seminar is supposed to be interdisciplinary. The course description for the seminar published by the university clearly states that it doesn't just deal with science; it also has to deal with important human questions raised by science. This course description applies to all the different faculty who teach the course. So Hedin's honors seminar isn't simply a science course. Does that mean Hedin can talk about intelligent design in the class according to Gora?

    2. President Gora forbids teaching that intelligent design is a scientific theory in science courses. But teaching about the controversy over intelligent design is not the same thing as teaching ID as a scientific theory. So can professors still teach students about the majority and minority views about intelligent design in the scientific community?

    3. If Gora really believes that intelligent design is religion and that it is inappropriate to present in science classes, does her gag order apply equally to scientists on her campus who are opposed to intelligent design? For example, does her new speech code forbid scientists from attacking ID in science classes? After all, in her view, that would be tantamount to attacking religion, and therefore would be unconstitutional according to her legal analysis.
    If anyone thinks that Gora's statement is the end of the Hedin matter, they are mistaken. This is just the beginning. BSU is a state university, and its blatant double standard on academic freedom raises fundamental questions that will need to be answered.


    According to the nitwit at Ball State, academic freedom doesn't apply in this situation because of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Scientific Consensus. Yet, that's exactly the sort of thing academic freedom is suppose to protect minority viewpoints from. Why did she think academic freedom existed? To protect the power-wielding majority from the minority? God Lord, what a dunce... and Slick sides with her.

    Secondly, as West astutely points out, if I.D. is religion, then that would make attacks against it equally as Unconstitutional as promotions for it. This begs the question: Are these completely honest do-gooders fighting for the integrity of the Constitution (well, accept when it comes to guns... then it doesn't count) equally as upset when I.D. (in their minds, religion) is attacked as they are when it's promoted? From my experienced, the answer is clearly no. That makes it clear that any pleads to the Constitution is just a cheap tuxedo to hide their true motivations: Protecting Darwinism.

    How embarrassing.

  16. #440

    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
    The report dealt with private schools and parochial schools, which are, according to Wikipedia, religious schools which are financed almost entirely due to voluntary donations, rather than taxpayer money.
    Can't you not even READ? The report indeed deals with private schools and parochial schools, and specifically those who receive public funding through voucher programs.

    It's somehow buried in the first sentences of the link!

    his week on Moyers & Company, 19-year-old education activist Zack Kopplin joins Bill to talk about his campaign to get creationism out of science classes in publicly funded schools. He discovered that students attending private and parochial schools in states with school voucher programs were taught creationism in addition to — or, in some classrooms, instead of — the theory of evolution... this map shows private schools that accept state vouchers and teach creationism.


    wow, just wow.

    2+2 = 4

    I realize a lot of thick-as-a-brick dunces will never believe it, but it does.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013 at 10:25 AM.
    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. #441
    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
    Darwin to my knowledge never wrote a word about the origin of the first life forms on Earth or abiogenesis.
    No offense, but I think it's safe to say your knowledge doesn't amount to much.

    Evolution of Evolution - 150 Years of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

    “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”
    --
    Charles Darwin, in a letter to botanist John Hooker, 1871

    Darwin never enthusiastically publicly argued for abiogenesis, but it sure sounds to me like he was a closeted believer in it. Of course, it's fitting that he would. His views on post-origins biology were clearly ateleological, so it's only reasonable that he would also believe in an ateleological origin of life. Gross ignorance aside, at least he was consistent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He first outlined examples of the common sense notion of life adapting from other pre-existing life, with abundant examples like my butterfly one (the most famous being the many species of finches in different habitats, with bodies and beaks tailored for exploiting locally abundant diets).
    His examples were weak and haven't withstood the test of time. First, that organisms can change (the non-fixity of species) has been known since the dawn of mankind; Darwin brought nothing new to the table there. The questions are, what are the extent of these changes, how far can they be extrapolated, and what are the causes behind them? Those are the questions Darwin attempted to answer, and with which I, and other intelligent, educated people, disagree with him, and his modern supporters, on.

    For example, Slick mentions finch beaks, but what does that demonstrate, exactly? What does extrapolating finch beak size and shape get you? Nothing beyond finches with differing sized/shaped beaks. To make matters worse, there appears to be a strict upper-and-lower-boundary on these type of oscillating changes; they'll only got so big, they'll only get so small.

    Here's the problem with this sort of extrapolation: Cosmetic variation doesn't add up to fundamental change. Fundamental change in biology requires massive levels of engineering; bodyplan changes, advanced new traits, multiple functioning proteins, working in unison, etc. The type of changes Slick speaks of wont get the job done, although I can understand how people who don't fully grasp the situation might think that they do. Furthermore, random mutation has proven to be destructive, it degenerates preexisting function, so why would I believe that it's the driving force behind all of life's engineering? Because some ignorant rubes in the 19th century said so? Because nutjobs with poor reasoning skills and personal agendas (no offense, Slick) said so?

    I don't think so.

    By the way, on a semi-related note, Douglas Axe, Cambridge-educated I.D. proponent who specializes in proteins (and quite the handsome young man), has been engaged in a fairly civil discussion with a University of Texas biology named Martin Poenie. His (Axe's) last piece was a challenge Poenie regarding Darwinian processes producing new genes:

    Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views

    Read that piece and you'll see how intelligent, educated, well-mannered, logical, and rational I.D. proponents like Axe are. We're suppose to believe that these men are an attack on scientific integrity, remember.
    Last edited by Lance George; 08-20-2013 at 11:22 AM.

  18. #442

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Well, here goes this thread. It was actually an interesting read until ................

  19. #443
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I'm not a fan of seeing anyone claim intelligent design is merely faith in the book of Genesis. I suppose on a semantic level you could see it that way, but it would be wrong to then assert or allege that everyone who entertains the idea intelligent design is automatically religious.

    I'm not religious. But I can entertain the idea of intelligent design. GRH says he is also not religious. And he's hardly the first person I can recall reading that was areligious and entertained the idea of intelligent design. It's basically a mainstream and/or atheist myth/propaganda that it's always about the book of Genesis.

    For some, namely Christians, Jews, Muslims, I'm sure it's one and the same to them, or at least a lot of it is, but they don't have a monopoly on the concept or the term.

  20. #444
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    This is the second time I've read about what's going on at Ball State in this matter, and I tend to agree with the Gora critics on this one. Seems hypocritical and ignorant to me. That having been said, that's based on what I've read so far; I don't know all the facts.

  21. #445
    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 Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not a fan of seeing anyone claim intelligent design is merely faith in the book of Genesis. I suppose on a semantic level you could see it that way, but it would be wrong to then assert or allege that everyone who entertains the idea intelligent design is automatically religious.

    I'm not religious. But I can entertain the idea of intelligent design. GRH says he is also not religious. And he's hardly the first person I can recall reading that was areligious and entertained the idea of intelligent design. It's basically a mainstream and/or atheist myth/propaganda that it's always about the book of Genesis.

    For some, namely Christians, Jews, Muslims, I'm sure it's one and the same to them, or at least a lot of it is, but they don't have a monopoly on the concept or the term.
    Right. The idea that life was designed is certainly friendly to belief in God, and theistic religions, and that certainly will attract believers. The problem with those who use this common-sense fact to attack I.D. is twofold:

    First of all, it's the genetic fallacy. Attempting to explain why someone believes something doesn't disprove the belief.

    Secondly, it cuts both ways. If we can blindly say theists accept I.D. based on it being God-friendly, then we can blindly say that atheists reject it for being God-friendly. The same point stands for Darwinian evolution. Traits that attract one side of the debate will repel the other side. They say I accept I.D. and reject Darwinism because I'm a theist; I say they accept Darwinism and reject I.D. because they're atheists. Ultimately, it proves nothing. What matters is the evidence, and in my opinion, the evidence sides with I.D., and it does so increasingly as we further understand the inner-workings of biology.

    What I see are I.D. proponents making strong evidential-based arguments, while Darwinists spew out motive-mongering and logical fallacies, all while trying to dodge debate and questioning, including in the classroom. That, to me, says that I.D. proponents are arguing from a position of confidence, while Darwinists reek of insecurity.

  22. #446

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Finally you are calling it what it is, a belief. You believe in I.D. Well, the center of topic is about science, not beliefs. I don't have any "beliefs" one way or another about the basic principles of evolution. I have an understanding of the facts that support them. That's like asking if I believe in gravity, thermodynamics, or calculus. There is no aspect of belief to it.

    What I see are scientists making strong evidential-based arguments, while fear-mongering closed-minded self-taught know-it-alls spew out trash and claim it to be scientific, when they care not a whit about the entire scientific process but instead grasp for anything to justify their BELIEFS.

    Believe or don't believe. Just don't claim your beliefs are science, just because, well, you believe them to be.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013 at 12:37 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!)

  23. #447
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,520

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Guys, we need to dial back the personal vitriol a little.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

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


  25. #448
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,520

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?



    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Peck For This Useful Post:


  27. #449
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,887

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Evolution is no where near the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, nor calculus.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  29. #450

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Evolution is no where near the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, nor calculus.
    Or females.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to PacerDude 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
  •