Toggle sidebar

Genetics and evolution

GulfCoastTider said:
Repeat after me: "FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD."

You've been sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA every time someone lists examples (like I've done with the Strep. pneumoniae and the sturgeon). As far as I'm concerned that question has been asked, answered, asked again, answered again. RTFT.



I don't think you could ever distill this debate into a single concept any better than the quote above. The only problem is, both sides wish to claim ownership of the willingness to learn.

Was it Scopes who refused to learn, or was it William Jennings Bryan?
Click to expand...

1) the massive list of examples
2)How somthing can come from nothing
3)what caused nothing to become something


fingers in ears ?
 
bamabake said:
Define force. I dont see how anyone could force their views on me no matter how hard. I like Paul of the bibles approach when he said to Ceasar " let us reason togather".
Click to expand...

I didn't say "force". I said "try to force."

However, I'll restate it:

I don't think that people should be overbearing in attempting to bring others to their way of thinking.
 
bamabake said:
1) the massive list of examples
2)How somthing can come from nothing
3)what caused nothing to become something


fingers in ears ?
Click to expand...

if you ever took up the gauntlet and held your own beliefs to the standards to which you hold others, something you've been asked to do repeatedly, something you've promised to do, something you've never done, you'd find the 'massive list of examples' argument cuts both ways. where is ONE example of modern human skull older than a million years old? where's ONE example of a virgin birth? where's ONE example of resurrection? and as for 2 and 3. how can something come from nothing? i don't know. god is something--where did it come from? if you say 'god has always been, and didn't come from nothing' then you can just as easily say that about the matter in the universe.
 
I came across this letter in a scientific publication and had to let you all know about it. Even though it is about the Big Bang Theory, and not evolution (the Big Bang Theory, by the way, is widely accepted in the scientific community just as evolution is) and it supported exactly what I have been trying to say. Assumptions are made when interpreting evidence, facts or data. Here are a few quotes from an ‘Open Letter To the Scientific Community’ that was put together by 33 secular scientists. Many more have signed the letter since it was published. It also pertains to the discussion of forcing your views on others. Evolution is, by the way, forced upon many, in every public school and university in America.

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’

‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’

‘Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.’

This is in the field of science is it not? Seems like there is room for bias after all. Maybe all scientists are not as objective as some would have you believe when it comes to evolution. They are apparently not objective about the Big Bang.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

‘Those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse.’

This quote was from one of the signers of the letter.
 
"where is ONE example of modern human skull older than a million years old?"

Not one... Adam and Eve aren't that old.

"where's ONE example of a virgin birth?"

Mary having Jesus.

"where's ONE example of resurrection?"

Jesus and Lazerus.... There's two

"how can something come from nothing? i don't know."

Exactly, you don't know, but I do... This lesson is free.

Evolution is based upon a theory that at some point in time, billions of years ago, no life existed upon the earth, not even one trace could be found. But, somehow, a miracle occured when just the right mixture of gases and acids mingled themselves together and microscopic organisms begin to develop. It
was imposible, but it happen just the same. In a swamp somewhere on earth, it is conjecturd that non-living matter gave birth to that which was alive. There is one major flaw in the whole senario... The fundamental laws of science condradict this basic evolutionary premise. The fundamental law of biology is the Law of Biogenesis. This scientific law upholds that all life must come from preciding life, and that of it's kind. Science teaches that life does not come from nonliving matter.

Pasteur and Sppallanzani proved the theory of spontaneous generation was false. Scientist that promote evolution can not get their theory to harmonize with this law of science.

What is the probability of spontaneous generation happening just once in history. Consider the basic law of probability formulated by Dr. Emile Borel,

"This law states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunites could exist for the event to take place."

Carl Sagan calculated the probability of life evolving on one planet to be one chance in one followed by two billion zeros! In other words, the odds of spontaneous generation occurring even one time are literally imposible.

Let's start there and move on...

Class dismissed!
 
'Repeat after me: "FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD"

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? The fossil record disproves your position. ever heard of the missing link?

I will let my beautiful wife Becca hit the home run on this one..now that we are back from vacation. Of course she will be very busy working as a Chemical Engineer but she needs a break once and a while.
 
blackumbrella said:
if you ever took up the gauntlet and held your own beliefs to the standards to which you hold others, something you've been asked to do repeatedly, something you've promised to do, something you've never done, you'd find the 'massive list of examples' argument cuts both ways. where is ONE example of modern human skull older than a million years old? where's ONE example of a virgin birth? where's ONE example of resurrection? and as for 2 and 3. how can something come from nothing? i don't know. god is something--where did it come from? if you say 'god has always been, and didn't come from nothing' then you can just as easily say that about the matter in the universe.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge, again.
 
Originally Posted by CrimsonNan
There you go again insulting Christians and other faiths who believe in God, the creator. It's always a put down with you, isn't it?

*******************************

Rainbow Tider said:

but beliving in christ is insulting to people who believe in allah or budda or the green pumpkinhead man. thats how religions work. we're right.you're wrong.
__________________

Actually believing in Christ is NOT insulting to people who believe in Allah or Budda, etc. Most people respect another person's religion/beliefs.

I was speaking to Umbrella about his insults to Christians, and for that matter, others who believe in a creator. If you want to see his various insults you'll have to go back and read all 22 pages from the start of this thread. It's certainly fine for anyone to post on any thread whenever they so desire, but to come in on the last few pages, and jump on someone like a frog on a June bug without understanding the preceeding comments, is unfair.

I'm not going to list every religion each time I post in here. For that matter I didn't plan to come back, but I felt I had to defend my comment to Umbrella.

I think Umbrella is a troll and is in here just to stir up trouble. He thinks he's cute and funny by insulting people behind a facade of "I'm only joking - where is your sense of humor". My sense of humor stops at someone making fun of a God that I believe in. He doesn't have to agree with me, but a little respect would be refreshing. He doesn't have a clue.
 
BeccaBama said:
I came across this letter in a scientific publication and had to let you all know about it. Even though it is about the Big Bang Theory, and not evolution (the Big Bang Theory, by the way, is widely accepted in the scientific community just as evolution is) and it supported exactly what I have been trying to say. Assumptions are made when interpreting evidence, facts or data. Here are a few quotes from an ‘Open Letter To the Scientific Community’ that was put together by 33 secular scientists. Many more have signed the letter since it was published. It also pertains to the discussion of forcing your views on others. Evolution is, by the way, forced upon many, in every public school and university in America.

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’

‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’

‘Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.’

This is in the field of science is it not? Seems like there is room for bias after all. Maybe all scientists are not as objective as some would have you believe when it comes to evolution. They are apparently not objective about the Big Bang.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

‘Those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse.’

This quote was from one of the signers of the letter.
Click to expand...


great post. quotes relevant info from contemporary scientific sources. as has been oft mentioned in this thread, it's a key feature of science to acknowledge and check its own biases, the letter in your post is a perfect example. a bias is being openly discussed in the scientific literature. like i said, great post.
 
KillVols said:
"where is ONE example of modern human skull older than a million years old?"

Not one... Adam and Eve aren't that old.

"where's ONE example of a virgin birth?"

Mary having Jesus.

"where's ONE example of resurrection?"

Jesus and Lazerus.... There's two

"how can something come from nothing? i don't know."

Exactly, you don't know, but I do...
Click to expand...

where's the evidence? other than in a drawer by every hotel bed in the country? 6th grade math: 'show your work.' perhaps your class dismissed too soon. about a century too soon, judging by your 'scientific' evidence. 19th CENTURY SCIENCE! lol. c'mon. seriously.

This lesson is free.
Click to expand...
good. i won't have to call the better business bureau.

Carl Sagan calculated the probability of life evolving on one planet to be one chance in one followed by two billion zeros! In other words, the odds of spontaneous generation occurring even one time are literally imposible.

Let's start there and move on...
Click to expand...
yes, let's. the next logical question me might move on to, since you clearly respect his opinion so much, is 'what did sagan think of evolution?' take a guess.
 
CrimsonNan said:
Originally Posted by CrimsonNan
There you go again insulting Christians and other faiths who believe in God, the creator. It's always a put down with you, isn't it?

*******************************

Rainbow Tider said:

but beliving in christ is insulting to people who believe in allah or budda or the green pumpkinhead man. thats how religions work. we're right.you're wrong.
__________________

Actually believing in Christ is NOT insulting to people who believe in Allah or Budda, etc. Most people respect another person's religion/beliefs.

I was speaking to Umbrella about his insults to Christians, and for that matter, others who believe in a creator. If you want to see his various insults you'll have to go back and read all 22 pages from the start of this thread. It's certainly fine for anyone to post on any thread whenever they so desire, but to come in on the last few pages, and jump on someone like a frog on a June bug without understanding the preceeding comments, is unfair.

I'm not going to list every religion each time I post in here. For that matter I didn't plan to come back, but I felt I had to defend my comment to Umbrella.

I think Umbrella is a troll and is in here just to stir up trouble. He thinks he's cute and funny by insulting people behind a facade of "I'm only joking - where is your sense of humor". My sense of humor stops at someone making fun of a God that I believe in. He doesn't have to agree with me, but a little respect would be refreshing. He doesn't have a clue.
Click to expand...


nan, you said 'most people respect another person's religion/beliefs.' why are my beliefs open to criticism, ridicule, and threats of damnation while the beliefs of those who criticize, ridicule, and damn are untouchable as butterfly wings?
 
blackumbrella said:
nan, you said 'most people respect another person's religion/beliefs.' why are my beliefs open to criticism, ridicule, and threats of damnation while the beliefs of those who criticize, ridicule, and damn are untouchable as butterfly wings?
Click to expand...

Because a belief in evolution is not a religion. I said 'beliefs' in the sense of religion, as Judaism, etc. (I'm not going to list all the various religions).

In fact, you can believe anything you want, as far as I'm concerned. But YOU are the one who insults those of us who believe in God, Jesus, Allah, etc., etc., etc. Don't think when you say something as a "joke" (as you call it) that you're not insulting those just mentioned. You do it on purpose and you know it.

BTW, who's threatening you with damnation? I have no authority to damn anyone. The God, that you don't believe in, is the only one who has the power.

AND, however the universe was created, God did it. All this petty talk about what or who came out of "goo", and when, is a bunch of nonsense.
 
CrimsonNan said:
Because a belief in evolution is not a religion.
Click to expand...
this runs contrary to what some in this thread have been saying from the get go, that creationism and evolution (and i suppose by extension religious ideology and scientific/naturalistic ideology) are at bottom both the same thing, a system of beliefs/assumptions/biases. do you disagree? if so, what is the difference as you see it? if not, why is one belief system so sensitive to criticism?
[/QUOTE]
 
blackumbrella said:
this runs contrary to what some in this thread have been saying from the get go, that creationism and evolution (and i suppose by extension religious ideology and scientific/naturalistic ideology) are at bottom both the same thing, a system of beliefs/assumptions/biases. do you disagree? if so, what is the difference as you see it? if not, why is one belief system so sensitive to criticism?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I have no intention of getting into an argument with you about evolution. I only wanted to point out your insults to those of us who believe in God. In my opinion evolution is NOT a religion.

Good-bye
 

I have no intention of getting into an argument with you about evolution. I only wanted to point out your insults to those of us who believe in God. In my opinion evolution is NOT a religion.

Good-bye[/QUOTE]


Evolution in not an an organized religion per se. Rather it is the "religion" of the humanist. This thread proves it. No matter the data, no matter the questions ask of the humanist, they cannot allow for any kind of devine factor or element in their lives. They really are forced to accept evolution as the only possible way for them to have come into reality. They grip this idea like people gripped the idea that the world was flat or that leaches were useful in medicine. Like all real science eventually the conventional wisdom will fall on this matter. Many leading authorities on this issue including some athiest have already confessed that we couldnt have arived here by chance or even evolution. Many will go to their grave with the diploma of naturalism. They worship the creation instead of the creator. Pray for them.
 
blackumbrella said:
latest on leeches. and who was it again who clung to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth?
Click to expand...

It was an analogy. Following your comment though... If the original theory ( which was incorrect) was that the sun revolved around the earth, was it not the burden of the people that had a newer theory to prove it. In this case the conventional wisdom that the sun revolved around the earth was replaced by facts that were out of reach before. The same is true on the subject of evolution in two ways. One is that evolution has never been proven as a fact just positioned as one, all the while the burden of disproving the old idea (that God crated us) was on your side. Second it is similar that due to modern science we know things about DNA etc that are proving with facts that the theory is passing away.
 
KillVols said:
'Repeat after me: "FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD. FOSSIL RECORD"

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? The fossil record disproves your position. ever heard of the missing link?

I will let my beautiful wife Becca hit the home run on this one..now that we are back from vacation. Of course she will be very busy working as a Chemical Engineer but she needs a break once and a while.
Click to expand...



I am underwhelmed at the response from the evoulution crowd on yours and Beccas posts. Their silence is deafening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back