The story of creationism is basically that of flat earth and geocentricism in the rest of the western world it is already on the same level as these even with average people, as they are in the scientific and academic community around the world. It could not be more obvious, the excuses used by creationists are the same ones used by geocentrists, germ theory denialsts and flat earthers.
What Dawkins said is that in the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent [process]"
This is a direct quote!
He said that the scenario was "highly unlikely" and that it doesn't at all explain the origins of life.
Are you trying to claim that either 1. Before Darwin, no one knew that Jews give birth to more Jews and 'black' people give birth to more of the same and that to kill them all would wipe them out? And 2. That nearly every Nazi soldier and the entire government were atheists? I can tell you that both are complete fabrication. Also, if they understood genetics they would have realised that the idea of a master race is nonsense.
@seansalvador1 The ills of society being blamed on a weaker race so to say. Natural selection is basically a way of saying only the strong will survive. Nazi thought they could decide who was strong and who was not. So what they tried to do it kill off the "weaker" race. However we are not to decide who is the weaker race, the world around us does.
@q28s1 "The ills of society being blamed on a weaker race so to say. Natural selection is basically a way of saying only the strong will survive."
No it isn't, in fact if we were to make the species less diverse it would be WEAKER according to evolution, the exact opposite of what you say the NAZI's claimed!
It is a common misconception that biologicl evolution is 'survival of the 'fittest''.
Except he didn't say that at all, he said it was highly unlikely, and that even if it did happen the aliens would themselves need explaining in the same manner ie they would have to had evolved by some equivalent process to modern evolutionary synthesis. That was after stein had lied about the purpose of the interview and asked how Dawkins under what scenario life could on this planet could possible have been designed! Pan spermia only pushes the question up a level!
Pan spermia does not answer the question over the ORIGIN of life itself, only how it got on earth. Dawkins a) does not believe it in the slightest as attested by his own words and a) even in this very interview still said that even if it were true, the aliens would need explaining anyway, so it doesn't actually have anything to do with the whole debate over the origins of life, evolution and the existence of god
In my school days I was taught about spontaneous generation, and theories that didn't work. Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated. We do need to see more information.
I do not think science blocks the availability of God or some form of intelligent designer(s). I also do not think limiting one person's free will to do another's is right. I personally would like a free for all.
"Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated."
Sure it is. The problem is that there's nothing to educate. Those who push ID want it presented as a valid scientific theory, and it's not. There's no actual theory there, a fact which even prominent ID advocates have acknowledged in their more candid moments.
@brpierce Then tell them that in science class, some people you have to spell it out for them. When it is person on person people take it as a personally attack, if it is spelled out in front of them and they can explore it at their own comfort level you may get different results. Otherwise you get an anticulture movement like what we have right now from it.
"Then tell them that in science class, some people you have to spell it out for them."
Should we also do the same for Raelianism? The belief in the luminiferous aether? ESP? Crystal healing? People believe in all of these things, and consider those who don't believe in them to be "suppressing valid theories."
The problem is, students are already not learning enough SCIENCE. If we take more time to teach them NON-science, what will we cut out?
@brpierce Do those actually cause as much strive as ID? No. That would be part of the reason why it'd be a better idea than the rest. Have not seen an argument of crystals.
If a kid is having trouble soaking up science and ditching classes he'll do it regardless of the content. Assuming we are talking about high school science it is all dumbed down enough to the point it doesn't matter if you take a bit out. Even a page would do. Someone who wants more in science will take it upon themselves.
"Do those actually cause as much strive as ID? No. That would be part of the reason why it'd be a better idea than the rest. "
Do we really want to determine what non-science is taught in a science class based on popularity? UFOs are wildly popular, and like Intelligent Design, it's not that the idea of alien life is far-fetched; it's just that there's no testable theory behind it right now.
Perhaps an even better question: if ID advocates want their belief taught as a theory so badly, why don't they actually take the time and put in the work to develop a working theory? They've been promising to do so for years now, but as far as I can tell, have made zero progress.
@brpierce Back to spontaneous generation which is completely flawed it is still allowed to be brought up in class, discussed, and appear in a text book. If the theory is so flawed shouldn't it still be allowed to be mentioned and brought about? We can mention how we thought the Earth was flat, or even how we may think it could be not even spherical, but more so a multidimensional shape. Why not be able to openly discuss other "possibilities."
@brpierce Continued... If you believe everything came out of no where. Where did it come from? If you believe in a infinite flux of a universe, where did it come from? We should be allowed to touch on these subjects and question. That is how science progressed. Look at the growing hype about string theory. It started more of a philosophy, and was taken as a ludicrous idea. I think possibilities how wack they may be should be allowed to be explored in school.
@rkyeun First of ID does not have to include God. Secondly never made any notion that I was a practising Christian, but more so believe in more freedom to touch on taboo things in school.
I am curious about the evidence you have though.
No you are not actually. If a Christian text book company produce a math book with no mention of God it still won't be accepted in a public school.
Last bit is just your personal opinion, and through my personal experience it has already.
There is no freedom in school teaching. Science is not a democracy, it is a tyrannical dictatorship with evidence on the throne. You go through science first, and then when you're proven you can go to the schools.
My evidence comes from the peer reviewed literature. Stephen Hawking is one of the big names in this field, and his lectures are available on YouTube. In the current theory of the Big Bang, the energy total is constant (and possibly zero).
But thanks to the Wedge Document we know that ID is a movement that DOES include God, meant to supplant by degrees any theory that is not a literal reading of Genesis.
> If a Christian text book company produce a math book with no mention of God it still won't be accepted in a public school.
If it lies about mathematics in the same way creationist biology texts lie about evolution, it surely wouldn't! Even if they replace God with an Intelligent Equator.
@rkyeun Even though by the time the text book enters schools it is already out dated.
Any particular link for "The evidence suggests there was never a time when it wasn't?" I'm curious which model you consider the current model for the big bang theory? From my understanding there is trouble explaining why such a low entropy state existed even though it is suggested the universe was born in one unless and fluxuating universe is at hand.
I'll just scratch it out in its entirety and let you watch Stephen Hawking explain himself.
Consider this an introduction to how to do research. Can you find Hawking's lecture series on your own using the YouTube search bar, and listen to what the man has to say in his sexy digital voice?
If you watched the movie that this is a response to the Discovery Institute denies that it has to include God. More than ten years later do you think that they are not allowed to change direction?
The school board is a democracy though unfortunately with agendas that do not have to correspond with scientific ideas.
> The school board is a democracy though unfortunately with agendas that do not have to correspond with scientific ideas.
The school board DOES have to conform to science when teaching science. This is why school boards unfailingly lose in court when they teach ID as part of that religious hoax.
For your research, please read the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. The entire transcript is available online, but just the final ruling of the Conservative Christian judge should be sufficient.
@rkyeun Stephan Hawkings is admirable, but some of his theories lack scientific evidence, and should be taken with a grain of salt. He believes in aliens something I believe earlier you were using as a point against me. Aliens seems like God of gaps to me. I don't believe I should be looking up stuff on to try and proof your point.
I do believe you are right on the mark with the school board though. Where I am from the government put into effect a law.
I don't believe I did or would have mocked you for believing in aliens. Given the wide range of conditions under which life can form, the immense scales of time available to the universe, and the absurd largeness of space, it seems a virtual certainty that aliens exist somewhere. We are ourselves such beings, after all, and I harbor no illusions about a small iron rock named Gamma Sol being more important to the universe than some other rock named Hovering Squid World 37-J.
A law that makes all scientific data to have to run through the government before it comes to the people. Since then Global warming broadcasting has decreased 90%. I guess I fear what else is taken from us.
I guess what this boils down to is I believe Id should be able to be discussed with school rooms because individuals should be in encouraged to think for themselves and figure things out rather than just memorizing things. You on the other hand thinking it isn't a good idea because
And as with any concept with little or no evidence to support it, it is not appropriate to teach it to children on an involuntary basis from a position of authority using taxpayer dollars.
Find out if it's true first. This is a question that a sufficiently clever person can create an experiment for, and with that experiment you can ask that question of reality directly and force it to deliver truth to you.
And in this case, that answer leads to common descent -- at least in Eukarya.
@rkyeun Fair enough, it shouldn't be taught in science.
So based on vastness of the universe you say aliens could exist and it is a belief that shouldn't be mocked? Based of the ideals we have about different dimensions and the universe would you also say it true that a creator of some sort could exist? I do get what you're are saying though, you wouldn't teach aliens as much as some form of creator.
Never was bashing evolution. I do believe in it at its full.
Until we find some aliens, I wouldn't teach aliens. And until we find a creator, I wouldn't teach a creator.
It is possible we are the result of a cosmic seeding, that we are a simulation in a computer program, that we are specially created by omnipotent drunken space lemurs from another dimension, that Hitler won the battle of Waterloo and went on to develop the iPod, and that you poop gold ingots. But I do not consider such unreasonable outcomes with any serious consideration.
Only that which is scientifically provable is teachable. Only that which is plausible is believable. There are undoubtedly true things science has not yet discovered, but we can not distinguish those things by hoping and guessing and having faith in the drunken space lemurs who vocal believers demand must be given the gold ingots you poop as tribute to avoid Space Hitler's wrath.
If a thing by definition cannot ever be discovered in any way, then yes that is the same as non-existence.
To fully explain my view is I believe in an oscillating universe that meets no end, and where evolution is present. Infinite or not, why is it there? If things are in motion There has to be something the created that motion. What is it? If it is multidimensional then most likely it can defy our laws of logic. Maybe you can help me with these personal questions.
As for school, I do get what you are saying and it makes perfect sense. I just believe in a more philosophical approach to schooling
You do not teach astrology in the science class, you also do not have to teach that it is not science... it would be a waste of time to teach everything that is NOT science in a science class.
Electric universe isn't science, homoeopathy isn't science, astrology isn't science, rain dancing is not science, David Icke's lizard people isn't science, Dr Who isn't science... the list is pretty much endless!
@seansalvador1 How many kids are going to bring up lizard men or a TV show in class? If you counted the amount of people backing those examples and compared it to the people backing intelligent design I believe you'd have a huge gap in between. If ID is wrong then there is even more reason to teach it because obviously there is too many people that need to be taught differently.
It's like telling a toddler not to touch a hot element. They don't know what hot is so they will probably touch it.
@seansalvador1 Just by typing in "how many people believe in.. " I found two figures. 30% of Americans believe in Astrology and 52% believe in ID. And from Wiki 45% for ID and 31% for Astrology. All these are for Americans as well.
@q28s1 "Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated"
That is simply not true, it is just not allowed to be taught as SCIENCE... mainly because it ISN'T SCIENCE.
@seansalvador1 "That is simply not true, it is just not allowed to be taught as SCIENCE... mainly because it ISN'T SCIENCE."
First off, Science is the pursuit of truth in understanding how the world works. For the sake of argument, IF DESIGN is true, then it becomes a scientific pursuit because its part of a description in how the world works in a cause and effect manner. Lets stop with BS. IF DESIGN IS REAL, then it becomes PART of science whether you like it or not.
So people don't get curious about anything taboo? I'm well aware how many don't believe it is science. Think you kind of missed the point of that statement.
i cant belive that you can be demoted in scientific society for being a total fucking moron and trying to use name of institute or university to make your moronic point seem more valid. oh wait, i do !
And I'm suppose to believe this? Right.. I feel sorry for people like you. You make up shit and take things out of context .it's what people like you do best.
You see the truth is G-d created male and female and all species. not aliens like Dawkins said,lol, wait dawkins,where did aliens come from? oh they were dropped off where and then evolved into aliens that then dropped of cells on earth,well why didnt they stick around to see what happened.I know,I'll ask Tom Cruise.
@Tpartymama "not aliens like Dawkins said,lol, wait dawkins,where did aliens come from?"
Funny you should say that, because what he actually said is "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent [process]"
This is a direct quote!
He said that the scenario was "highly unlikely" and that it doesn't at all explain anything!
Science doesn't say anything Scientists do!! Therefore if you have a bias, your going to lean towards that bias,scientists do it all the time,they have a problem(especially when money is involved) with being objective. If intelligent design is not the explanation,then why are colleges threatened with losing funding if they Id research is going on in the lab
Also the so called 98% of junk DNA is in fact not junk.Recently scientists have noted that RNA that does not form proteins have a function in that they can aide the other mechanisms of cell production(not all do). Our bodies are so complex that everything has a function,just because we don't know doesnt mean that its "junk" and has no purpose.15 yrs ago we were told that brain cells died for good,know we know our brains can develope new cells. wow
@seansalvador1 Junk DNA is a BS theory based on another BS theory. Its been abandoned in most circles because of recent findings. The only reason "junk DNA" ever had any ground was because certain scientists were looking for clues to support the idea of large scale evolution. Had we not done that and looked for more answers in this context we probably would have discovered that Junk DNA is in fact not junk at all long before we did. Yet ID is somehow a "science stopper"
You know as well as I do that junk DNA is a misnomer and ALWAYS WAS. It was used to describe DNA for which we had not yet discovered a purpose, the term was entirely provisional from the offset. The term is colloquial but tthere does exist non coding DNA, for instance 0.1% of the mouse genome was removed with no detectable effect on the phenotype, but that does dot mean it's 'junk'.
It was only labelled 'Junk DNA', but that never meant it was useless, it's simply a misnomer... it was a temporary label for DNA that was not known to have a use at that time. There still exists a massive amount of NON CODING DNA.
@seansalvador1"There still exists a massive amount of NON CODING DNA"
Yes, they basically did mean it was useless, in the same way they used to think that vestigial organs are useless. The point on this matter is simply that research is showing that it all SERVES A PURPOSE in some form or another regardless of whether it is NON CODING or not.
@Hustada Can't you remember having this very same conversation? Clearly not!
"You know as well as I do that junk DNA is a misnomer and ALWAYS WAS. It was used to describe DNA for which we had not yet discovered a purpose, the term was entirely provisional from the offset. The term is colloquial but tthere does exist non coding DNA, for instance 0.1% of the mouse genome was removed with no detectable effect on the phenotype, but that does dot mean it's 'junk'."
@seansalvador1 um no. MANY scientists just thought it was leftover DNA from prior ancestors and essentially useless. Thats exactly why it was called JUNK DNA.
h t t p : / / w w w . p s r a s t . o r g / j u n k d n a . h t m
@seansalvador1. A theory in fact is a Thought, not an explanation. You make a hypothesis into how your thoery may work and then test your hypothesis to see if your theory is true. in monitoring thousands of generations of fruit flies no evidence of evolution was reported. mutations can form from many factors,one of them not being time.Adaptation is not evolution,like todays darwanist see. t
@Tpartymama "A theory in fact is a Thought, not an explanation"
Please tell me the difference between a thought and an explanation. Are you claiming that explanations are not thoughts when they are in our heads? Then what are they?
Also, please click reply in future, simply putting @seansalvador1 t the top to make it LOOK as though you have replied is mendacious.
@seansalvador1 by stupid i mean its ridiculous to set that equation in stone unmoveable for all time & immune to revision. it works rather well for a lot of our understanding of the physical world but it cant explain everything we know now and yet its used to explain non relative objects in terms of relativity. Light is energy so it cant have mass or weight & the apparent wave particle duality is simply a parallax created by the different conceptual workings of the 2 halves of the brain..
@stiffex "by stupid i mean its ridiculous to set that equation in stone unmoveable for all time & immune to revision"
That's silly, it's mathematical!
Anyway, it is not unmoveable, it has been experimentally verified to within such a degree as to make it beyond reasonable doubt. To doubt it, therefore is unreasonable! But that does not mean that it is set in stone.
@seansalvador1 "That's silly, it's mathematical!" Its a set of scales that says what is on one side weighs the same as that which is on the other but it was derived at from insight and thought experiment, it asks us to have faith in its many assumptions and its predictions are open to interpretation.
From a philosophical perspective their are certain problems involved with how we arrive at certainty and truth but thats another subject.
Only mass murderers & brown noses get Nobel prizes.
@seansalvador1 "Tell me, what are the alternative interpretations of Particle accelerator confirmation of E=mc2?"
I am not a scientist but Einstein said he arrived at his theory by asking the simplest kvestionz so it deals with simple observations in the world of relations, or everyday reality or whatever you call it, that means those questions can be asked by anyone. Those questions are independent of "Relativity" which has been compounded with maths & politics & a subliminal whipping system.
Subliminal?! ...crazy.... just completely ignorant of everything you have decided to take on and criticise!
What could you possibly mean by independent of relativity? Nothing is independent of relativity... and E = mc2 is the formula for mass energy equivalence, not relativity. Also it's clear you have no idea what 'subliminal' even means.
What do you mean when you say relativity is 'compounded' with politics?! How old are you?
@stiffex "yet its used to explain non relative objects in terms of relativity"
How juvenile is this? It doesn't even make sense and you certainly don't understand what the equation means.
"wave particle duality is simply a parallax created by the different conceptual workings of the 2 halves of the brain."
The two halves of the brain?! Are you serious? This is juvenile nonsense. The idea that different operations are confined to separate hemispheres of the brain is a common misconception...
@stiffex "Light is energy so it cant have mass or weight"
Do you know the difference between rest mass, fixed mass (invariant mass), relativistic mass, inertial mass, active gravitational mass, and passive gravitational mass?
Here your just being pedantic now. No im not familiar with that language or the phenomena these labels attach to so i assume you are talking of different energy states that energy or a grain of sand find themselves in at the time, depending on what they are doing & whom they are doing it with.
@stiffex "talking of different energy states that energy or a grain of sand find themselves in at the time"
No. I suggest you look them up... take your time to actually study a subject before attempting to criticise it and then maybe you will avoid such glaring errors. It's like telling a mechanic how to fix a car with sellotape when you have never even seen one and have no knowledge of the working of an automobile.. literally!
Light has no invariant mass, but it has energy which means a system that absorbs a photon gains mass and vice versa and this has been shown experimentally, thus proving E = mc2.
It therefore has relativistic mass (an outdated concept which is best avoided, but this is purely due to terminology so one CAN say that light has relativistic mass if one wants to) but not invariant mass.
@seansalvador1 "Light has no invariant mass, but it has energy which means a system that absorbs a photon gains mass and vice versa and this has been shown experimentally, thus proving E = mc2." Ive tested that theory and fully falsified it : i had nothing to eat then weighed myself, then went sun bathing for a couple of hours. When i came in and weighed myself, lo & behold id actually lost weight. For my next experiment im going to try eating it.
That's because your body weighs so much, the weight gained with a rise in temperature is negligible in comparison to gains and losses from confounding variables such as sweating, moisture on your breath, food intake etc.
It's surprising you would say this unless you are either a child or very poorly educated.
@stiffex 1 gram of mass converts to the equivalent energy of the energy released in and explosion of about 32 thousand tons of TNT, so for your body to gain one gram it would have to rise in temperature of the same order ie several hundred thousand degrees Kelvin! Moron.
I will go a step further than intelligent design and posit that creationism is a legitamate scientific theory. Scientific method inquiry cannot discount me positing the possibility that existence is a shared dreamworld in which a god or being is authoring the dream physicality we all are imagining/dreaming to exist in. A dream is just as much a physicality to our perception as our supposed waking state and further we beleive in the dream is as much a true reality as the awake reality. Comments?
@Yippie101 This may seem harsh but, the hypothesis you propose holds absolutly no explanatory or predictive power and therefore can be completly dismissed and discounted in favor of current theories. Testing of your hypothesis is impossible as you yourself stated, when "inside" a dream, one cannot tell that they are so. An untestable hypothesis invalidates it's self by default.
@QCreyton The recollection and analyses of YOUR OWN dreaming is the test on the hypothiesed question of COULD this waking realm be a dream realm. The answer is it could, and that'd be a basis for creationism to enter the realm of legitamate scientific inquiry. I can come up with ways of testing this "physics of mind" regardless if you cant. But this isnt the place. Here i'm merely calling you academics to task in your illigitamate claim that a creationism inquiry isnt scientific. Matrix to class
@Yippie101 What you hypothesised was that another entity is the one having the dream that we inhabit. therein lies the problem. no matter if a person cen recall their own dream and said dream included people, there is no way to know if them characters are infact anything more than mental puppets dancing to our own tune rather than like you and i individuals capable of thought. recalling dreams is no test for your hypothesis. however if you feel you can come up with one please do so.
@QCreyton no my hypothesis is that the existent we perceive may not be an actual physicality that we perceive it to be. That we can and do perceive a physical reality at times (dreaming) that in fact is not physical at all. That science cannot prove our waking reality is NOT an imposed (self or otherwise) reality. This is Quantum Physics, a legitamate science . Your continuedd wish to discuss shows that creationsim is not a nonscientific theory and therefore is illegitamately removed from class.
It is absolutely not quantum physics at all, it is just solipsism and therefore on matters of theism or questions over existence, is merely a restatement of the same questions.
The thing that is doing the dreaming/simulating requires the same explaining.
The questions we are discussing and the whole debate still has not been resolved, it has merely described the creation of a 'computer game'. The creators existence requires the same explaining. It's a non answer.
@seansalvador1 Yes exactly, it describes existence as similar in design as a PC game. And why not? Who says gaming cannot be the motive of an otherwise noncorporeal entity/god. The motive? - An existence where 'acheivment' is possible to perform and feel. An 'evolving' of this entities conciousness. See the movie The Thirteenth Floor originally entitled Simulcrum 3. (and don't tell me what is quantum physics thought siince obviously im not the first to travel down this type scientific inquiry)
@Yippie101 "Yes exactly, it describes existence as similar in design as a PC game. And why not?"
Because the exact same questions regarding our existence are merely moved up a level to the designer. I made that point very clear yet you evaded it, in fact i repeated it three times in the same comment yet you still sidestepped it!
"Who says gaming cannot be the motive of an otherwise noncorporeal entity/god"
I said nothing at all about motives... another straw man.
@seansalvador1 Look - Blah blah to all your crap. All these postings amount to arguments by blitzcrieg. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the most simplest single celled organism as we have today. This claim that a self replicating simple(?) organism coming about by chance as having any probability is completely bogus. Read the book The Fifth Miracle to see that science has yet to come up with the physics chemistry that can account for abiogenesis. Lying is not a scientific argument.
One of the last recourse's of a losing argument is to accuse the opposition of lying. Tell me exactly how you came to this conclusion or it is simple libel.
@seansalvador1 Apparently you are a propagandist doubletalker. Your kind of bullying others like this only proves the documentary Expelled as a valid complaint. Your Darwinian claims have no legitamate peer review since your kind jury rig the periodicals. You post your doubletalk and censor out any scientists who point out the flaws.
@Yippie101 "Apparently you are a propagandist doubletalker"
It really would help if you knew what these words actually mean! Again, give me one single instance of doubletalk or propaganda (that last one is a laughable misuse). Just one.
"the documentary Expelled as a valid complaint"
It is openly dishonest, with dishonest editing, dishonest presentation and a openly flawed premises.
@Yippie101 Creationism, to put things simply, is not a theory, only a hypothesis. TA theory is what a hypothesis becomes once it has been tested for accuracy beyond any reasonable doubt and is supported by the available data. Theories are what get taught in the class room the interesting but un supported/not fully supported hypotheses are the things that are taught in universities to the students with the capabilities to understand and advance the research on the matter.
@seansalvador1 first off im not standing by any one specific religion in this scientific inquiry, so im not being theistic. And if I perceive a pencil on the table because it meets the criteria of a pencil existing - i dont need further to explain how it got there or who created it to continue in the claim that a pencil is on the table. And dreams are no difference to our perception as when we are 'awake'. It is Darwinism that evades the effort to explain biogenesis.
@seansalvador1 the subject at issue is between biogenesis by random or by design which presupposes a designer. (call this god or an alien or whatever) - both hypothesis have equal validity since neither can be discounted. (actually i think by random can be discounted since it violates astronomical odds against. Science falls to the probable not the improbable.)
again, it's funny you should say this, as if you had taken the time to even bother looking into the many different hypotheses i listed for you you would see that the probabilities are far from equal.
"since it violates astronomical odds"
No. No it doesn't, not given the vast time scales and opportunities.
When you can't stand the implications of some scientific discipline X, but can't think of any solid objections, you brand them instances of the sin of Xism and then you don't have to take them seriously! What next? A review that warns about the pernicious "meteorologism" that keeps scolding us about global warming, or the "economism" that has the effrontery to inform us that the gap between rich and poor is growing?"
This really just boils down to a kind of solipsism, and the more we learn about neuroscience the more it seems incorrect. Even if it is all really a simulation science is the only tool we have to study it, as philosophy is simply what we do when we don't yet know what questions to ask.
If you prefer to believe this hypothesis then not only are you 'jumping the gun', you are also speakin beyond your means...
@seansalvador1 Jumping the gun?!! Darwinism jumps from the starting point that lightening struck a mud puddle and a self replicating mechanoid poped out. If evolution requires reproduction, How then did the first organism 'evolve' reproduction unless you "jump" from the starting point that it already has this highly developed function that you dont want to bother to explain.
@Yippie101 "Darwinism jumps from the starting point that lightening struck a mud puddle and a self replicating mechanoid poped out"
This is nonsense.
For one it's called 'modern evolutionary synthesis, not 'Darwinism'. Secondly, this is a complete straw man... no one ever claimed anything about lightening or whatever.
"If evolution requires reproduction, How then did the first organism 'evolve' "
The first self replicating organism could have assembled by chance. It's highly probable.
@Yippie101 It's a good point to start from though, but don't kid yourself that creationism is anything more than a theistic tautology, and one that openly denies fact (beyond reasonable doubt). I would like to discuss it further but only from a philosophical view.
@piusvapor You can't call us closed minded when we have evidence supporting our claims. What is your evidence? The same "evidence" every religion attributes to their god.
@Forgeable The perfect full solar eclipse is evidence. In order for such an event to take place the moon's size and distance from earth relative to the sun's size must be an exact placement when there are numerous other possible sizes and distances that the moon could have been in a random selection. It is against the odds for any solar system to have an arrangement that would produce such an eclipse. think furter that it occurs where there is entities that can percive it. Astronomical odds.
This is proof of nothing, not to mention that the orbit has changed over time! It is gradually moving further away to a point of equilibrium.
Also, it does not cover the exacrt same angular diameter (moon = 29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes, sun = approc 32 arcminutes, about 0.5 degree of arc difference in angular measure) in the sky at all, something a perfect omnipotent being cannot do? Then he is clearly not omnipotent!
@Yippie101 "numerous other possible sizes and distances that the moon could have been in a random selection"
Yes, but this means absolutely nothing at all. It's like a person winning the lottery claiming that this is proof of something supernatural, when in reality it was bound to happen.
"It is against the odds for any solar system to have an arrangement that would produce such an eclipse"
No it isn't, not when you take into account the billions of planets, it is actually very highly probable.
@seansalvador1 Lottery odds are nothing compared to the astronomical odds involved here. A Rubik's cube has 45 quintillion possible combonations. Compare that to the time of the Universe since the big bang at merely 5 quintillion seconds(that's SECONDS). If every second you were to set the cube at a new combonation it would take 9 universal times to go through every possible combonation (and that is not even going randomly since we are not repeating any combonation by random settings).
@Yippie101 "the time of the Universe since the big bang at merely 5 quintillion seconds(that's SECONDS)."
This completely reinforces my point, so it's hard to see why you would mention it.
Viruses are not deemed living by most, but are by some. Either way they are immensely simple self replicating organisms and it's only due your lack of imagination that you cannot envisage simpler organisms. These organisms, given the vast amount of opportunities, could easily self organise.
See Derren Browns coin toss. He tosses a coin ten times in a row and gets heads. All he had to do was film himself tossing a coin lots of times and only screen the ten heads in a row.
@tghetto5 I tried to go back some pages but couldn't figure out what I was talking about. I'm pretty sure it was the orgin of life though, not biological evolution.
@vxer1000 "have a friend who is a PhD in bio-chemistry. He has heard all the evolution teachings in his classes and he still doesn't believe it is plausible."
That's because he studied biochemistry. That is nothing to do with modern evolutionary synthesis.
Tell me, what are his arguments against biological evolution? I bet you can't. IU bet his arguments are strawmen too.
It is exactly like telling a mechanic that cars do not exist because tyres cannot drive themselves! If you do not understand the combustion engine then who are you to criticise it? All you end up doing is looking very very silly.
@vxer1000 " cleave only to what evolutionists say on the subject, because they've studied it more?"
No, not because they have studied it more, but because they actually know what it is, what it means and the mechanism of how it works, and so can anyone. That's the point of science, you can learn it too, i just doubt that you will.
All i ever hear is straw men. It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is, if they are completely ignorant of a subject they cannot discuss it.
@vxer1000 "One look at a single strand of DNA is enough to convince me that it was designed and did not happen by chance"
No, it did not happen by chance and if you think the only alternative to chance is "god did it" then you are a very narrow minded and misinformed individual.
Chance is what any theory has to explain, and evolutionary biology does that neatly. Much more neatly and parsimoniously than "god did it".
@vxer1000 "Call me back after you've actually done the math of statistical probability. Did our system of life arise by chance or was it engineered? My money's on engineered."
How can one work out statistical probability with no data? Also, tell me why you think that statistical improbability equals impossibility? I can assure you that people win the lottery every day!
Do you believe a virus to be alive? If no then you admit much less complex, non living matter exist. If you believe they are alive then you admit that life can exist in much less complex than cellular form. Either way, you lose you line of reasoning.
@hyams1 I found severall trilobites in the wrong place. They should have been in the box with my other trilobites,but where in a box full of arrowheads and other stone age stuff.I hope the world of science isnt too pissed i disprooved evolution with that.I swear i didnt do it on purpose.I know have invested a lot of work and all,and i will be more cautious next time.
EDIT:Fuck!
I just realized evidence only counts when its published,hadnt I told you, all would have been fine.Boy I am so screwed!
The story of creationism is basically that of flat earth and geocentricism in the rest of the western world it is already on the same level as these even with average people, as they are in the scientific and academic community around the world. It could not be more obvious, the excuses used by creationists are the same ones used by geocentrists, germ theory denialsts and flat earthers.
pegasusfreedom 4 weeks ago in playlist Expelled Debunk - Flunked
"shit wrong slide" BUAHAHAHA nice one! you made my day
dumbo2021 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What Dawkins said is that in the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent [process]"
This is a direct quote!
He said that the scenario was "highly unlikely" and that it doesn't at all explain the origins of life.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you trying to claim that either 1. Before Darwin, no one knew that Jews give birth to more Jews and 'black' people give birth to more of the same and that to kill them all would wipe them out? And 2. That nearly every Nazi soldier and the entire government were atheists? I can tell you that both are complete fabrication. Also, if they understood genetics they would have realised that the idea of a master race is nonsense.
You are completely incorrect.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 Sorry no neither
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
Then how on Earth were the Nazi's influenced by Darwin?
Ho on Earth does what you erroneously refer to as 'Darwinism' lead to holocausts?
Stein is an idiot.
If they even understood evolution or genetics then they would realise that the whole idea is nonsense.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 The ills of society being blamed on a weaker race so to say. Natural selection is basically a way of saying only the strong will survive. Nazi thought they could decide who was strong and who was not. So what they tried to do it kill off the "weaker" race. However we are not to decide who is the weaker race, the world around us does.
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
Thank you for confirming what i JUST SAID!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 Not really.
q28s1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1 "The ills of society being blamed on a weaker race so to say. Natural selection is basically a way of saying only the strong will survive."
No it isn't, in fact if we were to make the species less diverse it would be WEAKER according to evolution, the exact opposite of what you say the NAZI's claimed!
It is a common misconception that biologicl evolution is 'survival of the 'fittest''.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
Aliens did it! Ah Ha ha ha ha ha ha hahhhhh! If ever there was an illustration of the intellectual bankruptcy of Darwinism, that is it.
ruthamyallan1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ruthamyallan1
Except he didn't say that at all, he said it was highly unlikely, and that even if it did happen the aliens would themselves need explaining in the same manner ie they would have to had evolved by some equivalent process to modern evolutionary synthesis. That was after stein had lied about the purpose of the interview and asked how Dawkins under what scenario life could on this planet could possible have been designed! Pan spermia only pushes the question up a level!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pan spermia does not answer the question over the ORIGIN of life itself, only how it got on earth. Dawkins a) does not believe it in the slightest as attested by his own words and a) even in this very interview still said that even if it were true, the aliens would need explaining anyway, so it doesn't actually have anything to do with the whole debate over the origins of life, evolution and the existence of god
QED.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
In my school days I was taught about spontaneous generation, and theories that didn't work. Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated. We do need to see more information.
I do not think science blocks the availability of God or some form of intelligent designer(s). I also do not think limiting one person's free will to do another's is right. I personally would like a free for all.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1 Some people may think they are giving a freedom to others, but there will also be someone saying they don't think it is enough.
q28s1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated. »
But it *is* allowed to be taught. Just not as science. Because it isn't science.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@q28s1
"Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated."
Sure it is. The problem is that there's nothing to educate. Those who push ID want it presented as a valid scientific theory, and it's not. There's no actual theory there, a fact which even prominent ID advocates have acknowledged in their more candid moments.
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce Then tell them that in science class, some people you have to spell it out for them. When it is person on person people take it as a personally attack, if it is spelled out in front of them and they can explore it at their own comfort level you may get different results. Otherwise you get an anticulture movement like what we have right now from it.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
"Then tell them that in science class, some people you have to spell it out for them."
Should we also do the same for Raelianism? The belief in the luminiferous aether? ESP? Crystal healing? People believe in all of these things, and consider those who don't believe in them to be "suppressing valid theories."
The problem is, students are already not learning enough SCIENCE. If we take more time to teach them NON-science, what will we cut out?
brpierce 4 months ago
@brpierce Do those actually cause as much strive as ID? No. That would be part of the reason why it'd be a better idea than the rest. Have not seen an argument of crystals.
If a kid is having trouble soaking up science and ditching classes he'll do it regardless of the content. Assuming we are talking about high school science it is all dumbed down enough to the point it doesn't matter if you take a bit out. Even a page would do. Someone who wants more in science will take it upon themselves.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
"Do those actually cause as much strive as ID? No. That would be part of the reason why it'd be a better idea than the rest. "
Do we really want to determine what non-science is taught in a science class based on popularity? UFOs are wildly popular, and like Intelligent Design, it's not that the idea of alien life is far-fetched; it's just that there's no testable theory behind it right now.
Should we put UFOlogy in the curriculum, as well?
(continued)
brpierce 4 months ago
@q28s1
Perhaps an even better question: if ID advocates want their belief taught as a theory so badly, why don't they actually take the time and put in the work to develop a working theory? They've been promising to do so for years now, but as far as I can tell, have made zero progress.
brpierce 4 months ago
Comment removed
q28s1 4 months ago
Comment removed
q28s1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brpierce Back to spontaneous generation which is completely flawed it is still allowed to be brought up in class, discussed, and appear in a text book. If the theory is so flawed shouldn't it still be allowed to be mentioned and brought about? We can mention how we thought the Earth was flat, or even how we may think it could be not even spherical, but more so a multidimensional shape. Why not be able to openly discuss other "possibilities."
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1 "Why not be able to openly discuss other "possibilities.""
Of course you can, but we're not talking about being 'allowed' to discuss 'possibilities' here, we're talking about it being TAUGHT!
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@brpierce Continued... If you believe everything came out of no where. Where did it come from? If you believe in a infinite flux of a universe, where did it come from? We should be allowed to touch on these subjects and question. That is how science progressed. Look at the growing hype about string theory. It started more of a philosophy, and was taken as a ludicrous idea. I think possibilities how wack they may be should be allowed to be explored in school.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
> If you believe everything came out of no where
Then you're reading from the book of Genesis.
> Where did it come from?
The evidence suggests there was never a time when it wasn't, so it doesn't have to 'come from' anything.
> We should be allowed to touch on these subjects and question.
And you are. You just can't make unfounded claims and expect them to be accepted as fact while being ignorant of both
> possibilities how wack they may be should be allowed to be explored in school.
No.
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun First of ID does not have to include God. Secondly never made any notion that I was a practising Christian, but more so believe in more freedom to touch on taboo things in school.
I am curious about the evidence you have though.
No you are not actually. If a Christian text book company produce a math book with no mention of God it still won't be accepted in a public school.
Last bit is just your personal opinion, and through my personal experience it has already.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
There is no freedom in school teaching. Science is not a democracy, it is a tyrannical dictatorship with evidence on the throne. You go through science first, and then when you're proven you can go to the schools.
My evidence comes from the peer reviewed literature. Stephen Hawking is one of the big names in this field, and his lectures are available on YouTube. In the current theory of the Big Bang, the energy total is constant (and possibly zero).
rkyeun 4 months ago
@q28s1
> ID does not have to include God.
But thanks to the Wedge Document we know that ID is a movement that DOES include God, meant to supplant by degrees any theory that is not a literal reading of Genesis.
> If a Christian text book company produce a math book with no mention of God it still won't be accepted in a public school.
If it lies about mathematics in the same way creationist biology texts lie about evolution, it surely wouldn't! Even if they replace God with an Intelligent Equator.
rkyeun 4 months ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 4 months ago
@q28s1
Your Christian textbook company idea is hilarious. I'll write the chapter headings for the math book!
If the real number line is true, there should be more transcendental numbers!
There are no transcendental numbers in the real number line! Any two real numbers have gaps between them!
The fundamental theorem of calculus is just a theorem!
If five comes after four, why is there still four?
The integers couldn't have put themselves in order by chance! It requires an Intelligent Equator!
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun Even though by the time the text book enters schools it is already out dated.
Any particular link for "The evidence suggests there was never a time when it wasn't?" I'm curious which model you consider the current model for the big bang theory? From my understanding there is trouble explaining why such a low entropy state existed even though it is suggested the universe was born in one unless and fluxuating universe is at hand.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1 Scratch out the unless lol.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
I'll just scratch it out in its entirety and let you watch Stephen Hawking explain himself.
Consider this an introduction to how to do research. Can you find Hawking's lecture series on your own using the YouTube search bar, and listen to what the man has to say in his sexy digital voice?
rkyeun 4 months ago
If you watched the movie that this is a response to the Discovery Institute denies that it has to include God. More than ten years later do you think that they are not allowed to change direction?
The school board is a democracy though unfortunately with agendas that do not have to correspond with scientific ideas.
q28s1 4 months ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
Of course they deny it.
And they certainly ARE allowed to change direction whenever they feel like, without waiting ten years.
But there's that pesky problem: They haven't, and they have a clear and stated intention to never do so.
Here's some more research for you to do. Go to the Discovery Institute's website and read the "About Us" page in full.
rkyeun 4 months ago
@q28s1
> The school board is a democracy though unfortunately with agendas that do not have to correspond with scientific ideas.
The school board DOES have to conform to science when teaching science. This is why school boards unfailingly lose in court when they teach ID as part of that religious hoax.
For your research, please read the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. The entire transcript is available online, but just the final ruling of the Conservative Christian judge should be sufficient.
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun Stephan Hawkings is admirable, but some of his theories lack scientific evidence, and should be taken with a grain of salt. He believes in aliens something I believe earlier you were using as a point against me. Aliens seems like God of gaps to me. I don't believe I should be looking up stuff on to try and proof your point.
I do believe you are right on the mark with the school board though. Where I am from the government put into effect a law.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
I don't believe I did or would have mocked you for believing in aliens. Given the wide range of conditions under which life can form, the immense scales of time available to the universe, and the absurd largeness of space, it seems a virtual certainty that aliens exist somewhere. We are ourselves such beings, after all, and I harbor no illusions about a small iron rock named Gamma Sol being more important to the universe than some other rock named Hovering Squid World 37-J.
rkyeun 4 months ago
A law that makes all scientific data to have to run through the government before it comes to the people. Since then Global warming broadcasting has decreased 90%. I guess I fear what else is taken from us.
I guess what this boils down to is I believe Id should be able to be discussed with school rooms because individuals should be in encouraged to think for themselves and figure things out rather than just memorizing things. You on the other hand thinking it isn't a good idea because
q28s1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
It IS discussed in school, in religious education where it belongs. It IS not discussed in science because it is not science.
If you claim it IS science then show me the scientific evidence that is to be taught.
That animals evolve is a fact, a scientific theory, as distinct from hypothesis, is merely a description of a mechanism of fact.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 Science does not equal schools. If I say it should be taught in schools doesn't mean it is science.
q28s1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
"Science does not equal schools. If I say it should be taught in schools doesn't mean it is science."
Of course not, but that is what these creationists are after.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
there is little to no evidence supporting ID.
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
And as with any concept with little or no evidence to support it, it is not appropriate to teach it to children on an involuntary basis from a position of authority using taxpayer dollars.
Find out if it's true first. This is a question that a sufficiently clever person can create an experiment for, and with that experiment you can ask that question of reality directly and force it to deliver truth to you.
And in this case, that answer leads to common descent -- at least in Eukarya.
rkyeun 4 months ago
Comment removed
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@rkyeun Fair enough, it shouldn't be taught in science.
So based on vastness of the universe you say aliens could exist and it is a belief that shouldn't be mocked? Based of the ideals we have about different dimensions and the universe would you also say it true that a creator of some sort could exist? I do get what you're are saying though, you wouldn't teach aliens as much as some form of creator.
Never was bashing evolution. I do believe in it at its full.
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
Until we find some aliens, I wouldn't teach aliens. And until we find a creator, I wouldn't teach a creator.
It is possible we are the result of a cosmic seeding, that we are a simulation in a computer program, that we are specially created by omnipotent drunken space lemurs from another dimension, that Hitler won the battle of Waterloo and went on to develop the iPod, and that you poop gold ingots. But I do not consider such unreasonable outcomes with any serious consideration.
rkyeun 3 months ago
@rkyeun So what scientifically proven is all that is eh?
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
Only that which is scientifically provable is teachable. Only that which is plausible is believable. There are undoubtedly true things science has not yet discovered, but we can not distinguish those things by hoping and guessing and having faith in the drunken space lemurs who vocal believers demand must be given the gold ingots you poop as tribute to avoid Space Hitler's wrath.
If a thing by definition cannot ever be discovered in any way, then yes that is the same as non-existence.
rkyeun 3 months ago
To fully explain my view is I believe in an oscillating universe that meets no end, and where evolution is present. Infinite or not, why is it there? If things are in motion There has to be something the created that motion. What is it? If it is multidimensional then most likely it can defy our laws of logic. Maybe you can help me with these personal questions.
As for school, I do get what you are saying and it makes perfect sense. I just believe in a more philosophical approach to schooling
q28s1 3 months ago
Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What is presented should be discussed.
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
> Right or wrong, it doesn't matter.
This statement alone defeats your argument.
rkyeun 3 months ago
@rkyeun How?
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
Does that matter?
rkyeun 3 months ago
@rkyeun Yes to me.
q28s1 3 months ago
PS. Sorry about the alien comment, I realized after posting it that it half way between comments you took the place of another.
q28s1 3 months ago
@q28s1
No worries.
rkyeun 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
The idea that the universe came from nothing is a religious one, in science there is no such thing as nothing.
"If you believe in a infinite flux of a universe, where did it come from?"
You obviously don't know what infinite means!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
Comment removed
q28s1 4 months ago
@q28s1
You do not teach astrology in the science class, you also do not have to teach that it is not science... it would be a waste of time to teach everything that is NOT science in a science class.
Electric universe isn't science, homoeopathy isn't science, astrology isn't science, rain dancing is not science, David Icke's lizard people isn't science, Dr Who isn't science... the list is pretty much endless!
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@seansalvador1 How many kids are going to bring up lizard men or a TV show in class? If you counted the amount of people backing those examples and compared it to the people backing intelligent design I believe you'd have a huge gap in between. If ID is wrong then there is even more reason to teach it because obviously there is too many people that need to be taught differently.
It's like telling a toddler not to touch a hot element. They don't know what hot is so they will probably touch it.
q28s1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
Your analogy was false, and there are many more believers in astrology than intelligent design. QED.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@seansalvador1 Just by typing in "how many people believe in.. " I found two figures. 30% of Americans believe in Astrology and 52% believe in ID. And from Wiki 45% for ID and 31% for Astrology. All these are for Americans as well.
q28s1 1 month ago
@q28s1
[Citation needed]
Think before you type.
seansalvador1 4 weeks ago
@seansalvador1 cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
I'd be nice if you backed up your arguments instead of just asking me the whole time to back up mine.
q28s1 3 weeks ago
@q28s1 Links not working now because of my edit. Just type in "Intelligent design poll" in on Google. The top two should do.
q28s1 3 weeks ago
@q28s1 PM sean with your BEST evidence.
Hustada 1 month ago
@q28s1 "Despite whether it works or not part of the reason people are so curious about intelligent design is because it is not allowed to be educated"
That is simply not true, it is just not allowed to be taught as SCIENCE... mainly because it ISN'T SCIENCE.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@seansalvador1 "That is simply not true, it is just not allowed to be taught as SCIENCE... mainly because it ISN'T SCIENCE."
First off, Science is the pursuit of truth in understanding how the world works. For the sake of argument, IF DESIGN is true, then it becomes a scientific pursuit because its part of a description in how the world works in a cause and effect manner. Lets stop with BS. IF DESIGN IS REAL, then it becomes PART of science whether you like it or not.
Hustada 2 months ago
@Hustada
"IF DESIGN is true, then it becomes a scientific pursuit "
There is no evidence for it, there isn't even a hypothesis as no science has been put forward. No research.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
So people don't get curious about anything taboo? I'm well aware how many don't believe it is science. Think you kind of missed the point of that statement.
q28s1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@q28s1
Just what do you suggest they teach? That either all the science and facts are correct or "god did it"... very scientific.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
i cant belive that you can be demoted in scientific society for being a total fucking moron and trying to use name of institute or university to make your moronic point seem more valid. oh wait, i do !
mikerozo 4 months ago
this video is lame. especially the examples you made about irreducible complexity.
icsvortex665 4 months ago
I hate john lennon.god damn king of hippies
icsvortex665 4 months ago
And I'm suppose to believe this? Right.. I feel sorry for people like you. You make up shit and take things out of context .it's what people like you do best.
cathrasher1974 4 months ago
The red Writing on Black Background is unreadable, at this low resolution.
LutzDerLurch 4 months ago
You see the truth is G-d created male and female and all species. not aliens like Dawkins said,lol, wait dawkins,where did aliens come from? oh they were dropped off where and then evolved into aliens that then dropped of cells on earth,well why didnt they stick around to see what happened.I know,I'll ask Tom Cruise.
Tpartymama 5 months ago
@Tpartymama "not aliens like Dawkins said,lol, wait dawkins,where did aliens come from?"
Funny you should say that, because what he actually said is "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent [process]"
This is a direct quote!
He said that the scenario was "highly unlikely" and that it doesn't at all explain anything!
seansalvador1 5 months ago
Science doesn't say anything Scientists do!! Therefore if you have a bias, your going to lean towards that bias,scientists do it all the time,they have a problem(especially when money is involved) with being objective. If intelligent design is not the explanation,then why are colleges threatened with losing funding if they Id research is going on in the lab
Tpartymama 5 months ago
@Tpartymama
This is nonsense. If you decided to use company money to fund your project attempting to find Noah's Ark then you would rightly be sacked!
seansalvador1 5 months ago
Also the so called 98% of junk DNA is in fact not junk.Recently scientists have noted that RNA that does not form proteins have a function in that they can aide the other mechanisms of cell production(not all do). Our bodies are so complex that everything has a function,just because we don't know doesnt mean that its "junk" and has no purpose.15 yrs ago we were told that brain cells died for good,know we know our brains can develope new cells. wow
Tpartymama 5 months ago
@Tpartymama "Also the so called 98% of junk DNA is in fact not junk.Recently scientists have noted that RNA "
Yes, scientists... not priests!
Are you claiming that evolution is invalidated because of recent genetic findings? I'd like to hear the evidence of this please.
"Our bodies are so complex that everything has a function"
So my friend who is missing a finger is dead?
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@seansalvador1 Junk DNA is a BS theory based on another BS theory. Its been abandoned in most circles because of recent findings. The only reason "junk DNA" ever had any ground was because certain scientists were looking for clues to support the idea of large scale evolution. Had we not done that and looked for more answers in this context we probably would have discovered that Junk DNA is in fact not junk at all long before we did. Yet ID is somehow a "science stopper"
Hustada 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hustada
Nonsense. I accuse you of mendacity.
You know as well as I do that junk DNA is a misnomer and ALWAYS WAS. It was used to describe DNA for which we had not yet discovered a purpose, the term was entirely provisional from the offset. The term is colloquial but tthere does exist non coding DNA, for instance 0.1% of the mouse genome was removed with no detectable effect on the phenotype, but that does dot mean it's 'junk'.
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@Tpartymama
It was only labelled 'Junk DNA', but that never meant it was useless, it's simply a misnomer... it was a temporary label for DNA that was not known to have a use at that time. There still exists a massive amount of NON CODING DNA.
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@seansalvador1"There still exists a massive amount of NON CODING DNA"
Yes, they basically did mean it was useless, in the same way they used to think that vestigial organs are useless. The point on this matter is simply that research is showing that it all SERVES A PURPOSE in some form or another regardless of whether it is NON CODING or not.
Hustada 2 months ago
@Hustada Can't you remember having this very same conversation? Clearly not!
"You know as well as I do that junk DNA is a misnomer and ALWAYS WAS. It was used to describe DNA for which we had not yet discovered a purpose, the term was entirely provisional from the offset. The term is colloquial but tthere does exist non coding DNA, for instance 0.1% of the mouse genome was removed with no detectable effect on the phenotype, but that does dot mean it's 'junk'."
seansalvador1 2 months ago
@seansalvador1 um no. MANY scientists just thought it was leftover DNA from prior ancestors and essentially useless. Thats exactly why it was called JUNK DNA.
h t t p : / / w w w . p s r a s t . o r g / j u n k d n a . h t m
Hustada 2 months ago
@seansalvador1 It was labeled JUNK DNA because thats basically what they thought it was. Lets not kid ourselves.
Hustada 2 months ago
@seansalvador1. A theory in fact is a Thought, not an explanation. You make a hypothesis into how your thoery may work and then test your hypothesis to see if your theory is true. in monitoring thousands of generations of fruit flies no evidence of evolution was reported. mutations can form from many factors,one of them not being time.Adaptation is not evolution,like todays darwanist see. t
Tpartymama 5 months ago
@Tpartymama "A theory in fact is a Thought, not an explanation"
Please tell me the difference between a thought and an explanation. Are you claiming that explanations are not thoughts when they are in our heads? Then what are they?
Also, please click reply in future, simply putting @seansalvador1 t the top to make it LOOK as though you have replied is mendacious.
Cont...
seansalvador1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tpartymama "in monitoring thousands of generations of fruit flies no evidence of evolution was reported"
William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly.
Speciation IS evolution!
"mutations can form from many factors,one of them not being time"
?? This makes no sense at all. I don't believe you have any idea about the theory you have decided to criticise!
seansalvador1 5 months ago
You are so naive djarm, the peer review system is a filter to weed out ideas that dont conform to the prevailing orthodoxy.
(E=MC2) = Stupid
stiffex 5 months ago
@stiffex
That equation has been experimentally verified so much that it is a fact beyond reasonable doubt I.E. to doubt it is unreasonable.
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@seansalvador1 by stupid i mean its ridiculous to set that equation in stone unmoveable for all time & immune to revision. it works rather well for a lot of our understanding of the physical world but it cant explain everything we know now and yet its used to explain non relative objects in terms of relativity. Light is energy so it cant have mass or weight & the apparent wave particle duality is simply a parallax created by the different conceptual workings of the 2 halves of the brain..
stiffex 5 months ago
@stiffex "by stupid i mean its ridiculous to set that equation in stone unmoveable for all time & immune to revision"
That's silly, it's mathematical!
Anyway, it is not unmoveable, it has been experimentally verified to within such a degree as to make it beyond reasonable doubt. To doubt it, therefore is unreasonable! But that does not mean that it is set in stone.
Disprove it. Win a Nobel prize.
"it cant explain everything we know"
Whoever suggested it could?
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@seansalvador1 "That's silly, it's mathematical!" Its a set of scales that says what is on one side weighs the same as that which is on the other but it was derived at from insight and thought experiment, it asks us to have faith in its many assumptions and its predictions are open to interpretation.
From a philosophical perspective their are certain problems involved with how we arrive at certainty and truth but thats another subject.
Only mass murderers & brown noses get Nobel prizes.
stiffex 5 months ago
@stiffex
"but it was derived at from insight and thought experiment"
Again it has been CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY on many separate occasions in very different experiments. They all agree.
"it asks us to have faith in its many assumptions"
No it doesn't. AGAIN, it has been experimentally VERIFIED. I will not 'debate' with a person who acts so mendaciously.
"its predictions are open to interpretation"
Tell me, what are the alternative interpretations of Particle accelerator confirmation of E=mc2?
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@seansalvador1 "Tell me, what are the alternative interpretations of Particle accelerator confirmation of E=mc2?"
I am not a scientist but Einstein said he arrived at his theory by asking the simplest kvestionz so it deals with simple observations in the world of relations, or everyday reality or whatever you call it, that means those questions can be asked by anyone. Those questions are independent of "Relativity" which has been compounded with maths & politics & a subliminal whipping system.
stiffex 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stiffex
Subliminal?! ...crazy.... just completely ignorant of everything you have decided to take on and criticise!
What could you possibly mean by independent of relativity? Nothing is independent of relativity... and E = mc2 is the formula for mass energy equivalence, not relativity. Also it's clear you have no idea what 'subliminal' even means.
What do you mean when you say relativity is 'compounded' with politics?! How old are you?
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@stiffex "yet its used to explain non relative objects in terms of relativity"
How juvenile is this? It doesn't even make sense and you certainly don't understand what the equation means.
"wave particle duality is simply a parallax created by the different conceptual workings of the 2 halves of the brain."
The two halves of the brain?! Are you serious? This is juvenile nonsense. The idea that different operations are confined to separate hemispheres of the brain is a common misconception...
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@stiffex "Light is energy so it cant have mass or weight"
Do you know the difference between rest mass, fixed mass (invariant mass), relativistic mass, inertial mass, active gravitational mass, and passive gravitational mass?
No, thought not.
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@seansalvador1 "Do you know the difference"
Here your just being pedantic now. No im not familiar with that language or the phenomena these labels attach to so i assume you are talking of different energy states that energy or a grain of sand find themselves in at the time, depending on what they are doing & whom they are doing it with.
stiffex 5 months ago
@stiffex "talking of different energy states that energy or a grain of sand find themselves in at the time"
No. I suggest you look them up... take your time to actually study a subject before attempting to criticise it and then maybe you will avoid such glaring errors. It's like telling a mechanic how to fix a car with sellotape when you have never even seen one and have no knowledge of the working of an automobile.. literally!
seansalvador1 5 months ago
@stiffex
Light has no invariant mass, but it has energy which means a system that absorbs a photon gains mass and vice versa and this has been shown experimentally, thus proving E = mc2.
It therefore has relativistic mass (an outdated concept which is best avoided, but this is purely due to terminology so one CAN say that light has relativistic mass if one wants to) but not invariant mass.
Study relativity.
See
corepower (DOT) com:8080 (/) (~) relfaq (/) light_mass (DOT) (html
seansalvador1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1 "Light has no invariant mass, but it has energy which means a system that absorbs a photon gains mass and vice versa and this has been shown experimentally, thus proving E = mc2." Ive tested that theory and fully falsified it : i had nothing to eat then weighed myself, then went sun bathing for a couple of hours. When i came in and weighed myself, lo & behold id actually lost weight. For my next experiment im going to try eating it.
stiffex 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stiffex
That's because your body weighs so much, the weight gained with a rise in temperature is negligible in comparison to gains and losses from confounding variables such as sweating, moisture on your breath, food intake etc.
It's surprising you would say this unless you are either a child or very poorly educated.
seansalvador1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stiffex 1 gram of mass converts to the equivalent energy of the energy released in and explosion of about 32 thousand tons of TNT, so for your body to gain one gram it would have to rise in temperature of the same order ie several hundred thousand degrees Kelvin! Moron.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
One thing, it is quite boring simply to have what you are saying written on the screen. Word for word.
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
I will go a step further than intelligent design and posit that creationism is a legitamate scientific theory. Scientific method inquiry cannot discount me positing the possibility that existence is a shared dreamworld in which a god or being is authoring the dream physicality we all are imagining/dreaming to exist in. A dream is just as much a physicality to our perception as our supposed waking state and further we beleive in the dream is as much a true reality as the awake reality. Comments?
Yippie101 7 months ago
@Yippie101 This may seem harsh but, the hypothesis you propose holds absolutly no explanatory or predictive power and therefore can be completly dismissed and discounted in favor of current theories. Testing of your hypothesis is impossible as you yourself stated, when "inside" a dream, one cannot tell that they are so. An untestable hypothesis invalidates it's self by default.
QCreyton 7 months ago
@QCreyton The recollection and analyses of YOUR OWN dreaming is the test on the hypothiesed question of COULD this waking realm be a dream realm. The answer is it could, and that'd be a basis for creationism to enter the realm of legitamate scientific inquiry. I can come up with ways of testing this "physics of mind" regardless if you cant. But this isnt the place. Here i'm merely calling you academics to task in your illigitamate claim that a creationism inquiry isnt scientific. Matrix to class
Yippie101 7 months ago
@Yippie101 What you hypothesised was that another entity is the one having the dream that we inhabit. therein lies the problem. no matter if a person cen recall their own dream and said dream included people, there is no way to know if them characters are infact anything more than mental puppets dancing to our own tune rather than like you and i individuals capable of thought. recalling dreams is no test for your hypothesis. however if you feel you can come up with one please do so.
QCreyton 7 months ago
@QCreyton no my hypothesis is that the existent we perceive may not be an actual physicality that we perceive it to be. That we can and do perceive a physical reality at times (dreaming) that in fact is not physical at all. That science cannot prove our waking reality is NOT an imposed (self or otherwise) reality. This is Quantum Physics, a legitamate science . Your continuedd wish to discuss shows that creationsim is not a nonscientific theory and therefore is illegitamately removed from class.
Yippie101 7 months ago
@Yippie101
It is absolutely not quantum physics at all, it is just solipsism and therefore on matters of theism or questions over existence, is merely a restatement of the same questions.
The thing that is doing the dreaming/simulating requires the same explaining.
The questions we are discussing and the whole debate still has not been resolved, it has merely described the creation of a 'computer game'. The creators existence requires the same explaining. It's a non answer.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 Yes exactly, it describes existence as similar in design as a PC game. And why not? Who says gaming cannot be the motive of an otherwise noncorporeal entity/god. The motive? - An existence where 'acheivment' is possible to perform and feel. An 'evolving' of this entities conciousness. See the movie The Thirteenth Floor originally entitled Simulcrum 3. (and don't tell me what is quantum physics thought siince obviously im not the first to travel down this type scientific inquiry)
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "Yes exactly, it describes existence as similar in design as a PC game. And why not?"
Because the exact same questions regarding our existence are merely moved up a level to the designer. I made that point very clear yet you evaded it, in fact i repeated it three times in the same comment yet you still sidestepped it!
"Who says gaming cannot be the motive of an otherwise noncorporeal entity/god"
I said nothing at all about motives... another straw man.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 Look - Blah blah to all your crap. All these postings amount to arguments by blitzcrieg. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the most simplest single celled organism as we have today. This claim that a self replicating simple(?) organism coming about by chance as having any probability is completely bogus. Read the book The Fifth Miracle to see that science has yet to come up with the physics chemistry that can account for abiogenesis. Lying is not a scientific argument.
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "Darwin had no idea of the complexity of even the most simplest single celled"
This has literally nothing to do with the argument in the slightest.
"Read the book The Fifth Miracle to see that science has yet to come up with the physics chemistry that can account for abiogenesis"
How many times must i say this? I have listed over 25 plausible hypotheses, you have simply ignored them entirely.
This is sheer cowardice.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "Lying is not a scientific argument."
One of the last recourse's of a losing argument is to accuse the opposition of lying. Tell me exactly how you came to this conclusion or it is simple libel.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "and don't tell me what is quantum physics thought siince obviously im not the first to travel down this type scientific inquiry"
This is not quantum physics, in fact it's not even science, it is philosophy, another of my points you completely avoided. It is solipsism.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 Apparently you are a propagandist doubletalker. Your kind of bullying others like this only proves the documentary Expelled as a valid complaint. Your Darwinian claims have no legitamate peer review since your kind jury rig the periodicals. You post your doubletalk and censor out any scientists who point out the flaws.
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "Apparently you are a propagandist doubletalker"
It really would help if you knew what these words actually mean! Again, give me one single instance of doubletalk or propaganda (that last one is a laughable misuse). Just one.
"the documentary Expelled as a valid complaint"
It is openly dishonest, with dishonest editing, dishonest presentation and a openly flawed premises.
"jury rig the periodicals"
Prove this claim.
"censor out any"
Again, prove this claim.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101
This, again, amounts to the replacement of valid argument that addresses the points with personal attack. This is another ad hominem fallacy.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101 Creationism, to put things simply, is not a theory, only a hypothesis. TA theory is what a hypothesis becomes once it has been tested for accuracy beyond any reasonable doubt and is supported by the available data. Theories are what get taught in the class room the interesting but un supported/not fully supported hypotheses are the things that are taught in universities to the students with the capabilities to understand and advance the research on the matter.
QCreyton 4 months ago
@Yippie101
You must understand that creationism is theistic, and your hypothesis isn't. Your creators must also be accounted for as we are.
Also dreams are very different to simulation.
This hypothesis, if true, would not in any way prove theistic or supernatural claims. It isn't even related.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 first off im not standing by any one specific religion in this scientific inquiry, so im not being theistic. And if I perceive a pencil on the table because it meets the criteria of a pencil existing - i dont need further to explain how it got there or who created it to continue in the claim that a pencil is on the table. And dreams are no difference to our perception as when we are 'awake'. It is Darwinism that evades the effort to explain biogenesis.
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101
"im not being theistic"
But you previously wrote
"the motive of an otherwise noncorporeal entity/god"
Res ipsa loquitur.
You probably don't know what theistic means.
"i dont need further to explain how it got there or who created it to continue in the claim that a pencil is on the table"
Yes, exactly how we don't need to explain the origins of life to describe how life evolves!
It is two seperate subjects.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 the subject at issue is between biogenesis by random or by design which presupposes a designer. (call this god or an alien or whatever) - both hypothesis have equal validity since neither can be discounted. (actually i think by random can be discounted since it violates astronomical odds against. Science falls to the probable not the improbable.)
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "both hypothesis have equal validity"
again, it's funny you should say this, as if you had taken the time to even bother looking into the many different hypotheses i listed for you you would see that the probabilities are far from equal.
"since it violates astronomical odds"
No. No it doesn't, not given the vast time scales and opportunities.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101
"Darwinsim"
When you can't stand the implications of some scientific discipline X, but can't think of any solid objections, you brand them instances of the sin of Xism and then you don't have to take them seriously! What next? A review that warns about the pernicious "meteorologism" that keeps scolding us about global warming, or the "economism" that has the effrontery to inform us that the gap between rich and poor is growing?"
Daniel Dennett
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101
This really just boils down to a kind of solipsism, and the more we learn about neuroscience the more it seems incorrect. Even if it is all really a simulation science is the only tool we have to study it, as philosophy is simply what we do when we don't yet know what questions to ask.
If you prefer to believe this hypothesis then not only are you 'jumping the gun', you are also speakin beyond your means...
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 Jumping the gun?!! Darwinism jumps from the starting point that lightening struck a mud puddle and a self replicating mechanoid poped out. If evolution requires reproduction, How then did the first organism 'evolve' reproduction unless you "jump" from the starting point that it already has this highly developed function that you dont want to bother to explain.
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "Darwinism jumps from the starting point that lightening struck a mud puddle and a self replicating mechanoid poped out"
This is nonsense.
For one it's called 'modern evolutionary synthesis, not 'Darwinism'. Secondly, this is a complete straw man... no one ever claimed anything about lightening or whatever.
"If evolution requires reproduction, How then did the first organism 'evolve' "
The first self replicating organism could have assembled by chance. It's highly probable.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101 It's a good point to start from though, but don't kid yourself that creationism is anything more than a theistic tautology, and one that openly denies fact (beyond reasonable doubt). I would like to discuss it further but only from a philosophical view.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
Expelled was a very good movie and really pointed out how truly closed minded and chicken sh#* the evolution only crowd really is.
piusvapor 7 months ago in playlist Expelled Debunk - Flunked
@piusvapor You can't call us closed minded when we have evidence supporting our claims. What is your evidence? The same "evidence" every religion attributes to their god.
Forgeable 7 months ago in playlist Expelled Debunked by Prometheus
@Forgeable The perfect full solar eclipse is evidence. In order for such an event to take place the moon's size and distance from earth relative to the sun's size must be an exact placement when there are numerous other possible sizes and distances that the moon could have been in a random selection. It is against the odds for any solar system to have an arrangement that would produce such an eclipse. think furter that it occurs where there is entities that can percive it. Astronomical odds.
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101
This is proof of nothing, not to mention that the orbit has changed over time! It is gradually moving further away to a point of equilibrium.
Also, it does not cover the exacrt same angular diameter (moon = 29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes, sun = approc 32 arcminutes, about 0.5 degree of arc difference in angular measure) in the sky at all, something a perfect omnipotent being cannot do? Then he is clearly not omnipotent!
This argument is another argument from ignorance.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "numerous other possible sizes and distances that the moon could have been in a random selection"
Yes, but this means absolutely nothing at all. It's like a person winning the lottery claiming that this is proof of something supernatural, when in reality it was bound to happen.
"It is against the odds for any solar system to have an arrangement that would produce such an eclipse"
No it isn't, not when you take into account the billions of planets, it is actually very highly probable.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 Lottery odds are nothing compared to the astronomical odds involved here. A Rubik's cube has 45 quintillion possible combonations. Compare that to the time of the Universe since the big bang at merely 5 quintillion seconds(that's SECONDS). If every second you were to set the cube at a new combonation it would take 9 universal times to go through every possible combonation (and that is not even going randomly since we are not repeating any combonation by random settings).
Yippie101 6 months ago
@Yippie101 "the time of the Universe since the big bang at merely 5 quintillion seconds(that's SECONDS)."
This completely reinforces my point, so it's hard to see why you would mention it.
Viruses are not deemed living by most, but are by some. Either way they are immensely simple self replicating organisms and it's only due your lack of imagination that you cannot envisage simpler organisms. These organisms, given the vast amount of opportunities, could easily self organise.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@Yippie101
See Derren Browns coin toss. He tosses a coin ten times in a row and gets heads. All he had to do was film himself tossing a coin lots of times and only screen the ten heads in a row.
Very simple.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@piusvapor
You really sound like an enlightened man...
duplux 7 months ago in playlist Expelled Debunked by Prometheus
@duplux Thanks
piusvapor 7 months ago
you are very intelligent. thank you for making this series it is really a good thing :)
420JimmyX 7 months ago in playlist Expelled Debunk - Flunked
@tghetto5 I tried to go back some pages but couldn't figure out what I was talking about. I'm pretty sure it was the orgin of life though, not biological evolution.
tghetto5 8 months ago
@vxer1000 "There are biologists making these statement as well, so you are incorrect."
Then prove it. I can give you a list of scientists named 'Steve' who do believe in it.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000 "No, because there are atheists that believe evolution is untrue"
Find me one scientists who is an atheist and also a biologist and does not believe in evolution. Just one. I am willing to bet you cannot.
The ability to understand complex things does not preclude a person from having to actually learn a subject before they can know it!
seansalvador1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vxer1000 "have a friend who is a PhD in bio-chemistry. He has heard all the evolution teachings in his classes and he still doesn't believe it is plausible."
That's because he studied biochemistry. That is nothing to do with modern evolutionary synthesis.
Tell me, what are his arguments against biological evolution? I bet you can't. IU bet his arguments are strawmen too.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000
It is exactly like telling a mechanic that cars do not exist because tyres cannot drive themselves! If you do not understand the combustion engine then who are you to criticise it? All you end up doing is looking very very silly.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000 " cleave only to what evolutionists say on the subject, because they've studied it more?"
No, not because they have studied it more, but because they actually know what it is, what it means and the mechanism of how it works, and so can anyone. That's the point of science, you can learn it too, i just doubt that you will.
All i ever hear is straw men. It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is, if they are completely ignorant of a subject they cannot discuss it.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000 "One look at a single strand of DNA is enough to convince me that it was designed and did not happen by chance"
No, it did not happen by chance and if you think the only alternative to chance is "god did it" then you are a very narrow minded and misinformed individual.
Chance is what any theory has to explain, and evolutionary biology does that neatly. Much more neatly and parsimoniously than "god did it".
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@tghetto5 "natural and maybe random process"
Mutations are random, but the selection of those mutations is anything BUT random. Biological evolution is not random.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000 "Call me back after you've actually done the math of statistical probability. Did our system of life arise by chance or was it engineered? My money's on engineered."
How can one work out statistical probability with no data? Also, tell me why you think that statistical improbability equals impossibility? I can assure you that people win the lottery every day!
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@vxer1000
Cells evolved from less complex replicators.
Do you believe a virus to be alive? If no then you admit much less complex, non living matter exist. If you believe they are alive then you admit that life can exist in much less complex than cellular form. Either way, you lose you line of reasoning.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
yeah great just found an error in your first sentence, you called Expelled a Documentary....
Aanthanur 8 months ago
"Shit, wrong slide."
LOLOLOL!!! I almost sprayed Coke all over my screen. Nice.
djtripnosys 9 months ago
Intellectually vivisected, butchered, digested and shat out. I love this guy!
SolarGrooving 9 months ago
lolol didnt have the money to go to the movies???
PastorRush1977 9 months ago
@hyams1 I found severall trilobites in the wrong place. They should have been in the box with my other trilobites,but where in a box full of arrowheads and other stone age stuff.I hope the world of science isnt too pissed i disprooved evolution with that.I swear i didnt do it on purpose.I know have invested a lot of work and all,and i will be more cautious next time.
EDIT:Fuck!
I just realized evidence only counts when its published,hadnt I told you, all would have been fine.Boy I am so screwed!
MrRichardQED