The story of Adam and Eve is an ancient Middle Eastern folk tale, i.e a MYTH. The fact that people still take it seriously these days is comical. How can anyone be so naive?
On the other hand we have evolution, which is backed up by over a hundred years of scientific evidence and proof.
creationism holds no merit in a science classroom. the creationism theory is so fallible, it would be an atrocity to students and hinders progress of humanity. creationists are much like flatists. take it to a sunday school, not a classroom
That Eugenie Scott quote is totally taken out of context and is utter bullshit. She has explained that the "fairness" card is being used by the ID people to get their materials on the table instead of going thru the rigors of peer review. What's even more amazing is that this guy can spew bald-faced lies with a totally straight face.
PZ Meyers hit the nail on the head when he said he could sum up the entire argument for ID in less than a minute..ready? here goes: COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY
Evolution is NOT a fact and never has been, because there is simply no evidence for it. Transformation from ape to man over millions of years would leave behind millions and millions of gradual transitional forms, so where the hell are they? Even Colin Patterson the director of the British museum of natural history admits that no such fossil exists. And Darwin also admitted in chapter 6 of his book: "why do we not see innumerable transitional forms everywhere?".
@clayden82 I dont know where youve gotten youre information from- but that isn't correct! none of it! there is enormous evidence for it at every paleontology lab at ant museum or university- visit one instead of a pastor. Transitionl fossils have been found-there are even videos on youtube where scientists hold them up and show them and proceed to explain them. and as far a s Mr Patterson saying that- can you cite where you got that information? I'm sure he'd like to know about it.
@clayden82 Why do you insist on quote mining? a. multiple transitional forms do exist, go to any natural history museum. b. you wouldn't expect to see "millions" due to punctuated equilibrium and the fact that fossilization is such a rare event, especially for small populations. And finally, you don't need the fossil record. Humans and chimps share endogenous retroviruses in the exact same location in our genome which would only be true if we had a common ancestor.
@libalchris Creationists have a gap fetish so they think there should be a complete array of fossils for every single transition. They fill any gaps with God and don't listen to any evidence on the contrary and rehash the same empty arguments.
@therunningtap Well said. And after being so intolerant to gaps watch how they deal with gaps in their accounts. Hypocrisy. Can't have denial without it anyway. ID's don't only deep down not believe their own accounts, they pretend they believe their own self, to their own self. In other words they not only deep down don't believe what they believe, but also believe that if they believe hard enough that they believe, then they'll forget they don't believe. And some have succeeded.
@clayden82 you are clearly misinformed. evolution actually has tons of evidence backing it up. there are actually multiple transitional forms, which clearly contradicts your claim. and also, humans have only been around for thousands of years, not millions
"Creation Studies" ?? lol !! That's in the same building as "Santa Studies" and the "Legal Union of Elf workers" and the "Pink Unicorn Studies Department", no ?
Wretched retarded idiots.
"Intelligent Designer" ? What bullshit. Who designed these morons ?
@allieron It's still possible that life on earth came about via the intervention of an intelligence. It is a hypothesis that can legitimately be submitted to scientific scrutiny (science is, after all, the best method of determining truth we have come up with so far. Anybody who disagrees with this should put down the keyboard and return to the forests). But when someone tries to attribute said intervention to Zeus, or Mbombo or whoever, without similar scrutiny, I have a problem.
it is not education to teach students something that is true,proved and fact and something that is untrue, myth and completely bereft of evidence and then tell them to make up thier own minds which to believe-that is irresponsible
Omg, i'm SO fucking happy that i live in Europa! Seriously, if that BS is going to be thought in your SCIENCE classes i feel really sorry for you guys :o
@JensAgain I know right? Im in Australia where there is no creationist movement and everybody knows that evolution is a fact. I really feel for the normal smart american who have to put up with this!
@dancingnancy09 It's unbearable, I actually had to live in a fundamentalist town and go to a private school where creationism was taught as fact, and evolution wasn't taught at all, stupidity everywhere. I've had to learn everything about evolution on my own time to make up for what i wasn't taught.
@libalchris oh my heart goes out- yeh see this is what I have such a big problem with- that violates your right to an education!! you shouldnt have to have gone through that!
you can't teach creation because its not facts. the bibile may or may not be true. you can't really prove god exists, all you can do is belive. that is just religion, not something that should be thought as hard facts. its silly when they try to shove religion down people throat. let students make their own choices.
@bustermk2 Ask those same people to do some basic integration, 95% wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about. Therefore, Newton and Leibniz were wrong.
The host completely misrepresented Eugenie Scott. She recognizes Americans are swayed by emotional appeal to "fairness." But she explains that science is not a democratic process and that giving equal time to creationism actually wouldn't be fair. To get something taught in the science classroom, it must have explanatory power and must be put before the scientific community to be tested. It would not be fair to let ID bypass the scientific process everyone else has to goes through.
"You can believe in God and evolution. God as an intelligence thet kick-started evolution"
The ever expanding elastic band of religion.
If GOD existed and created mankind...then I'd have to say Im very dissapointed. Mankind is not particularly advanced or special. GOD could have created a species far more capable than our own. Why Create cancer, disease, psychologicial/pathological problems? I love listening to religious folk answer these questions.
Without Yoko by his side, Yukio Mishima would've been sad & lonely. [Lou Reed is weak, as weak as a reed. Why can't Oprah & Gayle swap brassieres? Because Oprah's Winnebagos are more undulant & pendulant. Oprah was arrested at the airport after 40 pounds of crack was discovered under her skirt.]
If Intelligent Design was a science, what theories does it propose, and what applications does it have in the real world? How do we apply intelligent design to better our lives? And where does this leave people who work as evolutionary biologists?
Creationism, though seems to be referring to Christianity, to me , it can include all religions which is based on God. Some religions do not have the concept of God.
So, to those who believes in intelligent design, you need to question yourselves, is it the intelligent design of Allah or Jesus or xyz ?
Nature and Evolution itself is complex. Complexity need not come from God only.
Religion A believer believes fully that his God is the only God.
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE.
I remember a tv show where scientists tried to use science to explain the technology in Star Wars- which is a FANTASY movie. Needless to say, most of the stuff in Star Wars couldn't be explained by modern science. The bible is no different.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Could archeaology be considered a science?, also what would someone who believes in intelligent design look for when using micro biology for evidence?
@shakinahstorm Umm...yeah...archeaology is a science, but their field isn't in fossils, it's artifacts. I think your confusing it with paleontology. There is no evidence for intelligent design, either. Just because something is too complex for one person to understand doesn't mean that a supernatural boogy man created it. Creation is a fantasy, period. If science doesn't have an answer for it, it doesn't mean that creationists can fill the gap with the spackle of god. Earth is NOT 6000 years old
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Capt your reply is an interesting one, firstly it shows me that your use to making presumptions, as i dont know that i was making any inclination towards fossils at all?, secondly i dont know that i have any issues with science?. I guess the question needs to be asked, what exactly is it that science doesant have an answer for, and does science need to have an answer for everything?
@shakinahstorm OK then. To answer your questions: yes, archaeology is a science thou it isn't as fun as portrayed in Indiana Jones. Does science need to prove everything? No, but people want answers for everything and the only way to achieve answers is through science.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Its fair to say that science hasent an answer for everything, like how our dimension of time and space came into existence from within our dimension of time and space that never existed in the begining, or how life can spontaniously spring into existence from non life, however its also fair to say that it cant be a bad thing to be in the position of presumption and speculation, just as long as we can know where the line is between that and science.
@shakinahstorm I love the whole, "life sprang up from non life" comment. At least with that comment, life came from something where as with the common religious view, life popped into existence from an invisible space wizard. The non life comment isn't even an accurate statement, either. None the less, science has not once said that has all of the answers to everything- quite the contrary. The only thing standing in the way of science is the dogmatic views of the bronze age. Pity.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Thats something i have never really gotten a grasp on, how it is that a belief in God as the creator is supposed to hinder science, when science is all about appreciating God in His creation by seeking to understand how He went about it, via the tool of science?. Just because one believes their to be a supernatural influence outside of our natural dimension, why should that stop one from investigating the natural, God is the very one that has gotten me interested in science.
@shakinahstorm Science works off facts and observation. Creationists cherry pick different parts of science and warp the data to "prove" their point. Any REAL scientist that says differently is labeled as a hieratic with an agenda against religion. That's wrong. Again, I go back to my original comment regarding Star Wars. Nobody can prove that a god exists. If he does, he is grossly mismanaged and should find something better than overzealous preachers and fictitious books to make his point.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Like i said "Just because one believes their to be a supernatural influence outside of our natural dimension, why should that stop one from investigating the natural", which reinforces the true statement that you made "Science works off facts and observation". I believe a supernatural God brought our physical dimension into existence, and for me just the one cell alone is jammed packed with design that is layed out by the blue print of the DNA code.
@shakinahstorm If you believe in a supernatural wizard, be my guest. There is no evidence for it and science has found nothing to support it. By nature, man needs a security blanket to comfort them through life and an explanation for everything around them. Thousands of years ago, when man wasn't very bright, they created the mythology of the cosmic space wizard known as god to answer the questions for them. Can explain something? God did it. This became main stream and here we are today.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 I tend to agree that theres no evidence for a supernatural wizard, however its my belief that the very existence of our dimension of time and space is all the evidence we need for a Creator God outside of our own dimension, as nothing can come into existence from within inside of itself?, there has to be the existence of another dimension outside of this one with which would be eternal......
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Now, while its via evolutionary bias that causes for someone to assume man was not all that bright in the past, its via a biblical bias that gives the assumption man was very bright, as in the beginning man was perfect. Now lets look at the archeaological evidence and see which bias it supports?. Can you give me an example of how it was that not so bright man built the egyptian pyramids?, or how granite that can only be cut by diamond was given perfect right angles in Peru?
@shakinahstorm Easily: man thought earth was the center of the universe- they were wrong; they believed the earth was flat- wrong; they thought an eclipse was a giant snake eating the sun- wrong; religion enabled people to burn others fearing witches- wrong; they thought sinners were responsible for the plague- wrong. I can go on. You keep bringing up archaeology like it's some big thing. You give a kid some blocks, he'll make a house; ask that kid about the universe, they'll tell you a tale.
@shakinahstorm Are you saying god did these things? Some say aliens. Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll simplify: just because a person in that era was good at creating something didn't mean that they weren't ignorant about the world. Again, those same people thought the earth was flat. Those people in Peru: up until recently, they would shoot the sky during an eclipse trying to scare away the big snake. They all build cool shit, but I wouldn't go to them for answers about the universe.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Captain im not missing your point, your point is an effort to side skirt the issue, of how not so bright man was capable of the architectual feats accomplished that cant even be matched today?. See, what i believe to be the mistake being made here, comes in the form of speculation and assumption (a common one). Yes tribal man tend to believe in pig snakes, but was it the tribal man that was responsible for the AWSOME architectual accomplishments of the past?
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Or was it just like today, civilized man that accomplished those feats?. See a biblical bias will tell us that man has always been seperated into 2 camps, Tribal and Civil. And its the complexity of civil man that has followed the way of entrophy and has become less complex over time, up until the 20th century, where biblical prophecy keeps the bias in the right direction, and that is, in the last days knowledge will increase, with which the 20th century testifies to!
@shakinahstorm Oy...bottom line: there is no proof of a god. To believe in one god means that you think everybody else is wrong with theirs. It's a paradox and too much blood has been spilled over it. Going back to the core creation issue, there is zero proof that a cosmic wizard poofed us into the world. Creationists cherry pick bits of science to try to justify their claims. That's just bogus. You can't explain fantasy with science.
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 I guess the bottom line is that a person only sees what they want to see. When i bring together the incredible complexity of design found in nature and the cosmos alongside the fact that for it all to have a beggining, it needs a cause, i tend to see evidence for a supreme designer and God. However for the person that just cannot accept the possibility of the supernatural, there are alot of questions that may go un answered?...
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 And as for the blood that has been spilt, is that the result of religion or the interpretation of that religion. The corrupt roman catholic church tried to justify the pursecution of Christians and others within the inquistitions with a corrupt translation of the bible. In the same way it can be said that stalin and hitler spilt the blood they did via a corrupt translation of evolution (looking to exterminate the lower race to make room for the super race of people)???
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 To have more of an idea of where im coming from, you may want to youtube "Who Created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of God", the fellow in this presentation pretty much nails it with some strait up logic, and its the ball park of logic that you will find people like myself. Bless ya
There are literally 10,000,000 of fossils, in 1000s of institutions, over 100 of countries, with 100,000s of people spending careers studying these fossils, and NOT ONE fossil lies out of place. Sure there is fine tuning with twigs, but the shape of the tree is very well established (no rabbits in the Cambrian). So why do creationists state there are gaps in the fossil record?
Give a creationist the job of re cataloging the fossils in a single museum - maybe something will click.
@ToothbrushMan How do fossils form?, and how do we get a clam 4 feet in dimension to fossilize in the closed position?. Also, can you please give me some examples of where exactly the geologic column is found?, aswell as some examples of transitional fossils?. Thankyou
Most high school text books describe the process of fossilization. I was not aware there were any fossilized clams - or even if any were fossilized in the closed position Not sure how this is significant though. There is no geographical location for the geologic column - is a general term for the rock strata we observe - oldest at the bottom, newest at the top. It is easy enough to Google "List of transitional fossils". It's an impressive list.
@ToothbrushMan The thing is is what i have found in high school text books is that a creature first has to die then over a long period of time like millions of years, mineralization occurs to bring about a fossil. I guess why i brought up the closed clam thing, is that it doesant seem to fit with that logic?. As for transitional fossils, the question that needed to be asked, what sort of translations are need to be made to determine what is a transitional fossil?
@shakinahstorm Are you saying that minerals would be unable to penetrate a closed clam, and so fossilisation of its interior would not happen ? I doubt that clams are completely watertight, even when shut, especially after millions of tons of rock has settled on top of them and distorted them. The minerals would penetrate inside eventually, settle and/or precipitate inside.
@ToothbrushMan Its not that the minerals wouldent be able to penetrate, what im saying is the fact that when a clam dies it tends to open, not to mention where they are being discovered. Its been said that it takes millions of years for the mineralization to take place, how do we get dead clams to keep their shells closed for that long, whilst making their homes on the tops of mountains?
@shakinahstorm There is nothing special about "transitional" fossils. Most fossils are "transitional" fossils in that the creature evolved from an earlier species and subsequently evolved into one or more later species - but this is true of nearly every creature that has ever been.
@ToothbrushMan It does make sense that most fossils would be classed as transitional fossils as all living things are said to be in a constant state of evolution. However this is where i question as to wether we have moved from the arena of science and into the streets of assumption and translation?, with which i have to question the translation, as time and time again found in sediment thought to be millions of years old, we come across living fossils that show no sign of evolution?
"all living things are said to be in a constant state of evolution".
This is not strictly true. Species will only evolve if there is an advantage in doing so - there is no imperative to "evolve" as such. Hence, a species that gains no such advantage will not evolve (or evolve only very slowly). These are the so called "living fossils".
Note that evolution has both been observed in nature, and has been reproduced experimentally in the lab.
@ToothbrushMan Amen, evolution has been observed, thats nots denied, what it is thats questioned, is when we move from micro to macro, wether we still call it science or speculation and assumption?
The thing i find hard to grasp about the explanation for living fossils, is that over the period of millions of years the enviroment stayed the same, so there was no need for evolution?.
Im sorry ToothbrushMan, its all just to hard for me to accept, for me, it just does not fit logic.
@shakinahstorm Note that the term "living fossil" is a loosely defined term for a species that has evolved very little over millions of years, and so morphologically is very similar to the examples found the fossil record. It does not mean that a species has not evolved at all.
So every example of a "living fossil" is of a species that inhabits an environment that has not changed in millions of years - the ocean bottom is an ideal example. Hence the coelocanth and the horseshoe crab.
@shakinahstorm One would not find a living fossil in an environment that has changed - as new predators, foods, competitors etc. are introduced, a species would have to evolve or become extinct.
"evolution has been observed, that's not denied"
"it's all just to hard for me to accept, for me, it just does not fit logic."
Trust the observation. The observation beats fallible human logic every time.
The funny thing about creation "scientists" is that, no matter how many syllables are in the words they use, all I hear is "na na na I can't hear you", and all I see is a grown man with his fingers stuck in his ears.
The "theory" of evolution has come a long way since then, and creationism is still where it was centuries ago! Life is complex, sure, but it's also chaotic and flawed. So we don't have every single fossil, does that make us wrong? What do the creationists have? Nothing! Creationism is no more than a tenuous hypothesis that cannot be tested! We have enough fossils to know what they're pointing to, at least I think so anyway, and so do many others. Fossils aren't perfectly laid out for us.
Yeah the bible does have a better explanation, god made man, and knowing everything let Satan, who he must have created in the first place, trick eve and condemning human kind. Then he got a girl pregnant with his son, who also was himself to perform miracles so great everybody else forgot to write them down, then sacrifice himself to become a loophole for his own mistake. Waaaay better than the big bang.
@DerpdaDerp1 No way is it better then nothing exploding to give us everything we see today, not to mention life spontaniously springing into existence from a rock?!
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation.
this is stupid. if my kid is taught creationism in school im going to shit everywhere. why i dont beleive the earth was creative in 7 days, or that "its so good someone msut have created it", bc im not in second grade anymore is why. just bc people are dyng to keep the bible the dominant source of apparently every knowledge on the planet, doenst mean you fuck with my kids education into somehtin that is already, and hopefully forever, being swept under the rug
@smooshmagoosh so your telling me its ok for them to teach about homo sexuallity in school because that people way off like but there can't teach intelligent design ? How about to to teach everything about the world makes everyone happy there is nothing wrong with that
@DirtyEdon: Yes, it's wrong to teach intelligent design because it's not scientific. It's saying "We don't know what caused this directly so w're just going to assume a specific, intelligent entity did it." That's like teaching doctors that germs are created from sin and you don't have to wash your hands if you're righteous. It's retarded...
As for teaching "about" homosexuality, that's no different than teaching "about" war or "about" religion or "about" sports. Knowledge of is not support of.
@J242 Dawkins himself has admitted alongside other evolutionists, that life seems to give the implification of intelligent design, if life gives the implification well then how is it we cant suggest that its science that has given the implification. I mean its science that has established that there is infomation stored within DNA, however we are not allowed to suggest that science has pointed towards an informant?.
@shakinahstorm "Dawkins himself has admitted...life seems to give them implication of ID"
In what paper, lecture, debate, etc? I've never heard or read him (or any evolutionary biologist or biologist in general) every suggest such a preposterous claim other than in reference to "seems to suggest IF you don't take in to account this, this and THIS!"
The Rest of your post is just rehashing the original quoted lie. Provide evidence which supports your dubious claim or don't respond at all.
@shakinahstorm: "Richard Dawkins Intelligent Design and Space Aliens, youtube it."
Really? I did. It was conjecture that was HIGHLY edited via Ben "I'm a completely self-righteous piece of shit who worked for Nixon" Stein where Dawkins says "I suppose you COULD say there MIGHT be some kind of signature in... and then he gets cut off, read his book to learn more... Check out the "ExpelledExposed" site sometime and prepare to have those little glass fragments you see as "evidence" shattered.
@J242 Expelled exposed is an interesting presentation, however the spin thats been put on each and individual case does not take away from the legalities of each case within the Expelled presentation, it still seems to me the back bone to all the cases has everything to do with what had been presented. Also lets not forget Exposed does not take away from what Dawkins admitted to, there may of been some editing, however it cant be denied as to whats been admitted to.
@shakinahstorm: "Exposed does not take away from what Dawkins admitted to"
Yes it does because they used a sound bite which cut him off in the middle of his answer. That is NOT the same thing as him "admitting" to anything! Why? Because what they cut out was the rest of his explanation of the HYPOTHETICAL concept of another more advanced race (alien) having "seeded" the planet and IN THAT CASE, "you MIGHT be able to find some kind of signature for a designer" in DNA. (more likely than "god")
@J242 I guess the question needs to be asked, can there be a hypothesis without possibility?. Dawkins has "admitted" to there being a possibility, no matter how "nonsensical" he may feel that possibilty to be. The fact remains to entertain the possibility in any sort of way, is to recognize the impression of design within life :)
"Dawkins has "admitted" to there being a possibility, no matter how "nonsensical" he may feel that possibilty to be."
No, he has not. You still don't get it. The clip was edited to make people like you THINK he was "admitting" to a possibility but he was just trying to be courteous to his offensive interviewer and explain how in the highly unlikely scenario some "signature" might be found it could be via natural (not supernatural) means. That is NOT the same thing as admitting.
@J242 Sorry, might and impossibility are 2 differant things, no matter how you want to weave yaself around it. And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!, all you people ever seem to do is insult others for not accepting what you believe to be true, which is totally un called for!
@shakinahstorm: " And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!, all you people ever seem to do is insult others for not accepting what you believe to be true, which is totally un called for!"
Choosing to speak out of ignorance on a topic while claiming bronze age superstition and "magical creation myths" as fact is as intellectually insulting as believing you can breathe lava or swim through rock.
@J242 Like ive said its not my intention to be offensive!, what it comes down to, is that just as you would find it a huge leap of faith to believe that there wasent someone behind the design of that wrist watch your wearing with all its complexity, i find it just as hard in saying there wasent anyone behind the complexity of life. Choosing not to align scientific evidence with your worldview, is in no way the same as calling someone a piece of shit!
@shakinahstorm: "And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!"
So demanding evidence and rigorous peer review before recognizing something, then going so far as to utilize the science developed around it successfully for decades is being rude? Pointing out that the religious believers have no such standard for their claims but are considered equal is acceptable? I find THAT rude. Belief is easy and lazy.
@shakinahstorm: " I guess the question needs to be asked, can there be a hypothesis without possibility?."
Yes, I can hypothesize that Darth Vader actually exists in a negative zone created by anti-matter which secretly controls our universe via super-string theory all I like, doesn't mean there's any possibility of it. Anyone can hypothesize anything, that's not the same as having a peer-reviewed theory that is accepted around the world as being valid. Again, education is a good thing...
@shakinahstorm: "here may of been some editing, however it cant be denied as to whats been admitted to."
Yes it can because he didn't admit anything. Stein kept pressing him and to sum up what he said, it was: "Well, if you really think there was some kind of creator, I GUESS it's within the realm of minute possibility there could be a more advanced race that seeded the planet and IF THAT WERE TRUE, we might be able to find some kind of "signature" in DNA but that's almost nonsensical..."
@J242 Why on earth would anyone even give the possibility of intelligent design a nonsensical minute, if they werent admitting to the possibility?. In other words whats been admitted to here is the possibility of intelligent design. "We might be able to find some kind of signature", that to me is so close yet so far away from "its imposssible we could never find a signature?.
@shakinahstorm: "Why on earth would anyone even give the possibility of intelligent design a nonsensical minute, if they werent admitting to the possibility?"
No one is seriously giving ID any time as a legitimate possibility. Religious folks are bringing it up in an effort to force supernatural nonsense into science classes. We are simply responding in order to show how ridiculous the entire notion is. How in any way, can one test the idea of ID? You can't, its not science. End of story.
@J242 Now when it comes to religion, who is it thats religous exactly?. Now it can be agreed the naturalist evolutionist does not allow for the supernatural within their religion, however their natural religion involves placing faith in the time it takes for evolution to work. And no, a gull that can no longer mate with another gull on the otherside of the planet, fitted with all the other speculative evidence, this does not some up a good case for macro.
@shakinahstorm: "Now when it comes to religion, who is it thats religous exactly?"
Any and all who take stolen supernatural mythology as being in any way remotely factual. No testing to verify the claims, just assuming them to be correct. That's religious behavior regardless of the specific supernatural belief being told.
@J242 If cut an pasted Christianity is what your getting at by the term "stolen mythology", its all to easy to accept a cut and pasted Christianity when in a position of ignorance, however its not through a lack of testing that ive become aware of its authenticity, its only through a lack of non bias testing that one can accept that Christianity is cut and pasted. A person can read what ever into anything, and your welcome to do that, not wise but welcome.
@J242 I believe in a creator, why cant i still do science, why cant i use science to appreciate the complexity of life that i believe points towards a creator?. I mean for me, finding infomation within DNA is whats to be expected when i hold onto a belief of a designer, if there were no info to be found, well then questions would need to be asked.
@shakinahstorm: "In other words whats been admitted to here is the possibility of intelligent design. "
No it is not. It's the same thing as if you asked "but what about the people that believe they've seen flying unicorns" and a scientist responding "Well, that's patently absurd but if people honestly believe they've seen this, I "GUESS" one explanation could be that a horse with a bone defect was jumping and people thought they saw it "fly" because of a mirage." That's not legitimizing.
@J242 See that does makes sense what your saying, however noone is saying they saw a flieing unicorn?, we are talking about ID, wether an alien race or God, its still ID. a horse with a bone defect is not a unicorn. Again, you can try weave around it which ever way you choose, it wont change the fundamentals of whats been said.
@shakinahstorm: "wether an alien race or God, its still ID. a horse with a bone defect is not a unicorn."
Yet ID has no method for testing the veracity of the claims and as such is not in anyway scientific. It's assumption based on lack of knowledge and speculation only. A horse w/ a bone defect is not a unicorn, I agree, thus my point of mentioning that just because someone saw that from afar and BELIEVES they saw a unicorn doesn't make it true. Just as people BELIEVE in some creator doesn't.
@J242 Again, wether alien or God, its still ID. As for assumptions and speculations, this is exactly what i have been trieing to get at with evolution. Darwin founds himself at the galapagos, finds a variety of finches, and from that drew the conclusion that through natural selection all of life was brought into existence from one single living cell, that somehow appeared out of non living matter?. For me, that takes some serious speculation and assuming???, sorry but thats just to much!
@shakinahstorm PS, thanks for being MUCH more civil and not nearly as irrational as the "Zebra" poster who doesn't even understand the concept of pattern-camouflage and the fact that lions are color-blind.
@shakinahstorm: "The Greatest Show on Earth"... It's available in bookstores and e-book retailers around the world. Oh wait, E-books are suggests wireless transmission of content between manmade devices infinitely beyond froze age knowledge so you won't bother to look into it. You'll just continue with your hypocrisy while typing away on your "magical communication system" given to you by one "god" or another right? Yeah... You're a hypocrite, just like all of your fellow sheeple.
@J242 Why are you people so into character assasination?, its so popular amongst you lot, it in itself speaks volumes!. Anyhow champ, i will leave it with ya, bless ya.
@shakinahstorm: "Why are you people so into character assassination?,"
What do you mean by "you people"? Sorry if intelligent, educated, rational people look down on you but that's all your own doing.
"its so popular amongst you lot, it in itself speaks volumes!."
Not nearly as popular as proper spelling, grammar and punctuation... I'd say your inability to even communicate coherently speaks far more about your own ineptitude but hey, I'm just referencing reality here.
@J242 No sorry champ, the fact that unintelligent, uneducated, irrational people seem to get under the skin, it tells its own story. I mean come on champ, you have the truth thats all that matters isent it mate!, why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?, or Stieny is a piece of shit?, and it goes on and on and on.... Peace out champ!, relax and smile :)
@shakinahstorm: "the fact that unintelligent, uneducated, irrational people seem to get under the skin, it tells its own story. "
Yes it does, it says that people shouldn't tolerate the folks you specify (Not the OWS folk, much more the TP'ers thank you very much) and DON'T call me champ. You're likely not my elder and certainly not my superior. Do not speak down to me, you're not in a position to...
@shakinahstorm " mean come on champ, you have the truth thats all that matters isent it mate!, why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?,"
Is english your 2nd language? Is grammar, punctuation and proper spelling beyond you? PS, quit calling me "champ" unless you're willing to accept that's it's just short-hand for "champion" which I'm not & not trying to be.
@shakinahstorm "why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?"
Read that question, read it nice and slow and THEN respond again.
Why would someone question ignorant opinions? Because ignorance causes racism, sexism and in general hatred against "the other" they aren't familiar with. Look at your responses here. You're a perfect example of this. Get an education.
@J242 Is that the same as being ignorant of the possibility for the existence of a creator God?. And im sorry that calling you a champ is offensive, as i happen to believe everyone are champions, because God doesant create anything less then that of a champion, mate your as much as a champ as i am. Bless ya :). Ps im looking at my responses and there only seems to be the one person making hateful remarks towards those unfamiliar with?, and there aint no hate in me :)
"Is that the same as being ignorant of the possibility for the existence of a creator God?."
Quote what you are referring to. I'm giving you the courtesy of such and I'm an atheist so the least you can do is respond in kind.
Regardless of you not addressing the point, the "possibility" of a so-called" creator" like your "god" cannot in ANY way be quantified, verified or proven. The entire concept of it's existence has to be taken solely on faith. Sorry, not enough for me.
@J242 See the thing is, we look at the same evidence through differant bias, so our interpretation is obviously going to be differant, Everything you have written, i assume the same for macro evolution, it cannot be verified or proven. Its all to easy to prove variations between species, however to say that those variations are going to eventually bring about more of a complexity of that species is questionable, when observable mutations encourage entrophy, opposite of whats expected.
@shakinahstorm "See the thing is, we look at the same evidence through different bias"
There is no bias when it comes to observable fact backed up by decades of tests which support the concept to the point where we can get expected results by forcing a process. That alone should end the discussion but you folks of faith still won't just accept the reality. No surprise, it took your kind over a hundred years to accept that we orbit the sun, not the other way around.
@J242 The evolutionary world view is one that has tried to cram the evidence to fit, this has been happening throughout the ages, right back to when Haekle tried to make a name for himself. See the thing is, today what is seen as evidence for evolution, tommorrow is disregarded. This is the norm when that comes with the cramming behaviour. And as for Galileo, "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.", the words of a devout Christian!
@shakinahstorm: "The evolutionary world view is one that has tried to cram the evidence to fit"
The evidence LED to the concept which after years of research and validation led to the scientific theory after being put through the ringer by other scientists throughout the world. That's the scientific method itself. How can you possibly sit there and try and claim what you said?
@J242 No, a Darwinian theory that has been kept alive today by a people that simply do not want to entertain the thought of an existant God of who they would have to be accountable to. Dont know why an individual would look at God in that light, i mean to come to know the creator of all that with which we can appreciate with science, in a personal relationship, is not only open to everyone, but its the greatest opportunity for anyone to take advantage of!, includeing you!
As for your Galileo bit, you forget to mention his being locked up by the church under house arrest for "daring" to teach observable fact because the CHURCH deemed it heresy to disagree with them. Yeah, real bad example there. Utter, complete failure.
PS, why not address the points I've raised with information that can challenge them? I know you can't intellectually refute any of it but you're outright ignoring everything I refer you to. WTF? That's just nonsensical.
@J242 Nonsensical, thats a cool word :) Thats right, the same church that had persecuted all Christians of the day, even Christians that were translating the bible into english in the effort of opening up the bible to a greater crowd. A corrupt catholic church who had been tried to defend pagan dogma, the same church that still to this today proclaims Mary as the mother of God, its also the same church today that accepts the theory of evolution!
@shakinahstorm: "A corrupt catholic church who had been tried to defend pagan dogma"
You mean like "Christmas", "Easter" and more? Also, without the Catholic church, your "christian" religion wouldn't even exist so you might want to keep that in mind. But hey, we have modern evangelicals who are just as corrupt and hateful and millions on X-ians follow them. The problem is, you all disagree on what to believe thinking only YOU know the "real truth" and it's pretty funny to watch the hypocrisy.
@J242 The celebration of the birth, death and resurrection has nothing to do with pagan dogma, the only thing it has in common, is Christmas shares the same date as a pagan celebration. And as for easter, if people want to hand out eggs to each other that came from a rabbit, its their choice, however this has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of my saviour. And NO, the catholic church tried to stamp out Christianity and failed!. As for corrupt evangelists, its their choice, not Gods
@shakinahstorm: "The celebration of the birth, death and resurrection has nothing to do with pagan dogma"
12 apostles, 12 months. 3 wise men follow the star of bethlehem (Sirius B which the three stars of Orion's belt line up towards) and near the spring equinox the "sun (not SON) is risen". The SUN goes down with no lateral advancement in the sky for a period of three days during the fall solstice than the SUN again rises.
Everything about X-ianity is based on pagan mythology.
@shakinahstorm: Easter was Ostara from the pagans and as for the bunny? A pagan symbol of fertility associated with the coming of spring/end of the winter. XMas? Labeled to line up with the Yule traditions and persian Saturnalia. Halloween? Converted by x-ians to downplay Samhain. The list goes on and on as well. Everything about X-ianity was stolen from previous cultures from the Zorastrian's Zora to the Egypt's Horus and even the greek myths. Yet somehow that's more true than science? lol
@shakinahstorm: "i assume the same for macro evolution, it cannot be verified or proven. "
talkorigins dot org /faqs/macroevolution dot html
You are wrong. Your kind is always claiming no evidence but when it's presented, forgetting that claim and claiming something else is an example of no evidence. The phylogenetic record alone is proof of macroevolution regardless of your willing choice not to accept it. You can choose to believe water isn't a liquid, that doesn't mean its actually dry.
@shakinahstorm: "when observable mutations encourage entrophy, opposite of whats expected."
You are speaking about individual mutations which are much more common which is not the same as the gradual adaptation involved with evolution. However, if a noticeable physical mutation like say, a 6th toe and finger on each foot and hand were a dominant genetic trait and that person had a multitude of children (let's say they are mormons) you'd see many more people with the mutation. x-x6-x36-x216, etc
@J242 The reason for why these mutations are so common, is because theyre "observable". The way i see it, is that mutations play around with existing info, wether that info be dormant or not, and what it is being observed is the scrambling of existing info. It doesant matter how many times we play round with the tuner knobs on a radio, we are never going to end up with a Television?, infact what it is that we are going to end up with, is a worn out radio.
@shakinahstorm: "and what it is being observed is the scrambling of existing info." Well, you'd be wrong to think that. Just as we can force mutations upon the offspring of creatures via chemical alterations pre-pregnancy and in-utero, we can also use genetic, chemical and other methods to alter already existing life which can indeed pass the traits onto potential offspring. It's not "changing what is already there" it's a matter of inserting new material which forces changes to the source.
@shakinahstorm: "So we have a tool that we can use to encourage the scrambling of info?"
*Facepalm*... NO. We have methods which ALTER the DNA of an individual to the point where NEW CODE is generated as a result (i.e.; wasn't part of their original genetic makeup originally??!!). Scrambling doesn't create anything new, it just shuffles what's already there. We can force our own bodies to alter their own genetic makeup and create new strings for a variety of purposes and intents.
@J242 LOL!, be gentle with yaself mate, like ive already said dont allow for us un educated people frustrate you so much, try a smile it really does help, even a forced one. Even if what your saying is factual, it still comes down to the fact that its via manipulation for it to work, guided process, and for it to happen by un guided processes again and again and yet again right up to the complexity of life we have today, 5 billion yrs???, no way???!!!
@shakinahstorm And no, enviromental guidence could not produce the complexity of life we have today in such short amount of time!, even if i am giving you that extra amount of time from 4.6 billion years.
@shakinahstorm: "And no, enviromental guidence could not produce the complexity of life we have today in such short amount of time!,"
We have observed complexity of thousands of species of bacteria, fungi and single-celled organisms "erupt" from mineral rich water under the right heat conditions (similar to what we believe primordial earth to have been like) in a matter of weeks. 4.6 billion years? PLENTY of time... You need to educate yourself better on this before forming your opinions.
@J242 I may need to educate myself, however this is differant from being indoctrinated into "believing" what you people want to believe. The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!
@shakinahstorm: "however this is differant from being indoctrinated into "believing" what you people want to believe."
It doesn't take indoctrination to recognize the facts of readily observable scientific realities. We have a massively detailed fossil record for hundreds of species showing the transition between different animals from previous shared ancestors. Just because you CHOOSE not to recognize that only means you are ignoring the reality of the situation and that's all on you.
@J242 Im in total agreeance with you here J2, It doesn't take indoctrination to recognize the facts of readily observable scientific realities, however it does take indoctrination to force those facts into a presupposition. "We have a massively detailed fossil record", no, what you have is, is exactly what we have, billions of bones in the dirt alongside an interpretation (speculation), like the bones of the archaeoraptor?
@shakinahstorm: "no, what you have is, is exactly what we have, billions of bones in the dirt alongside an interpretation (speculation), like the bones of the archaeoraptor?"
No, like I said, we have a very detailed fossil record based on the age of the fossils & the transitions observed as the age of these fossils gets shorter and shorter. You may think it's all "just a bunch of bones in the dirt" but then how do you explain complete skeletons in everything from tar to ash to sand?
@J242 Fossils that have been dated by a non existing geological column with which that column was dated by the fossils?. No, you have an interpretation of bones found in the dirt, OR bones in tar, ash or sand.
@shakinahstorm: "The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!"
Wrong...
First off, we HAVE created artificial life via synthesized DNA (yportal dot com/scientists-create-life-from-nothing-first-synthetic-cell/) and secondly, we have OBSERVED the creation of proteins into amino acids into DNA from innate materials in underwater volcanoes. Voila!
@shakinahstorm: "Come and see me when you find away to fit that DNA within your own cell that has been built from scratch, rather then borrowing one?."
They have built SYNTHETIC DNA and injected it into an emptied bacterium cell, triggering it to life. Yes, the synthetic DOES fit within cells and is being investigated for human trials as we speak. Do you even read what I refer you to? Really, I go out of my way to try and provide examples for you but you don't even read them do you? How rude.
@J242 LOL!, "how rude"!, thats great value, lol... :) So, tell me is this how it happend within the primordial soup. What this tells me, is that when injecting Synthetic DNA into a pre existing cell, we can boot start a cell. You are replicating the design in life, thats all, you are not creating it!. However, it is impressive science.
@shakinahstorm: "The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!"
See, the thing is, you don't know enough about this to hold informed or educated opinions on the matter. You have several times proven this by passing rampantly false assumptions as fact that can indeed be confirmed as valid fact. We are ONLY able to create based on learning from nature.
@shakinahstorm: "It doesant matter how many times we play round with the tuner knobs on a radio, we are never going to end up with a Television?"
Not in any way a valid (or anything remotely resembling realistic) analogy. Firstly, it's a limited set of options. Secondly, no one is saying we're going to take an ant and convert it into a whale which is basically what you're suggesting with your radio to TV analogy.
I'd recommend studying forced evolution of bacteria sometime...
@J242 Sorry J2 but an ant into a whale, how is that any differant from a single cell to complex life as we know it?. And by un guided processes?, that takes the cake, sorry. Bless ya
@shakinahstorm: "how is that any differant from a single cell to complex life..."
*facepalm x 2* Single cell life forms are nearly infinitely malleable. Take 4 different petri dishes filled with the same single celled life forms (raised from the same colony) and put each of them through completely different conditions with different food sources and you will get completely different results. We do this NOW and know it to be fact. Quick question, do you even know what a vestigial appendage is?
@J242 Vestigial Appendage, is that the thing in my lower back that without it i would have to wear nappies, the tail bone?. The very tail bone that was once attached to a tail that for some reason i would no longer need, when i could think of many advantages to having a tale today, the tale that was so popular with Haekel, the very tail that if it were even so, we did loose an existing tail, would only account for the loss of info? Cheers
@shakinahstorm: "Vestigial Appendage, is that the thing in my lower back that without it i would have to wear nappies, the tail bone?"
Much more than that. Tonsils, wisdom teeth, lower appendix, many people born with 6th toes or fingers, "finger bones" in the rear flukes of whales for when they were once land mammals, ACTUAL tails on humans (A few cases reported every year in the US alone), the list goes on and on and on. There is no use for them but because they don't harm us, they remain.
@J242 No such thing as vestigial, Without those bones in the whale, they would have trouble multiplieing, without the appendix, life span is shortend. I mean i can still drive a car without headlights, that doesant mean the car doesant need head lights?. All this could ever account for if it could account for anything, is the loss of infomation, which in no way can this bring about more of a complexity!, and no, bacterial imunity does not account for me growing fins???
Seriously? So, then why does the blind Spalax have eyes? The Proteus has useless non-light receiving eyes covered by layers of skin. Most pythons have vestigial pelvises that float unconnected to their spine! Dandelions reproduce via apomixis yet still produce sterile pollen, flightless beetles with fully formed wings under their shell, even us humans have the coccyx where our fused caudal vertebrae once held tails and the list goes on and on and on.
It helps if you are going to try and debate with someone about the merits of an advanced science like evolution that you are at least able to spell the words you use properly. Sheesh... I've held back from saying anything until now out of courtesy but it's kind of offensive when you cannot even be bothered to use proper spelling and grammar.
@J242 Im sorry that my spelling has such an effect on you, however i dont believe wisdom comes in the way one spells ;) And when it comes to the technicalities of evolution, the very fact that it needs to be so technical, of in itself says alot. I have found in life, that the plausability of something only gets weaker the more technical it becomes in its explanation.
@shakinahstorm: "Im sorry that my spelling has such an effect on you, however i dont believe wisdom comes in the way one spells ;)"
It's not about wisdom, it's about courtesy. It's also about the time taken to respond. Hasty responses in general show more errors than thought out responses.
"And when it comes to the technicalities of evolution, the very fact that it needs to be so technical, of in itself says a lot."
Yes, it says it's a SCIENCE and not a "belief". Science is technical.
@J242 No its not about courtesy, its about geniune poor spelling!, however im not sure that my spelling is all that bad?, I mean have i made any mistakes within this paragraph, take out the red pen of correction and mark me :)
This has been flagged as spam show
The story of Adam and Eve is an ancient Middle Eastern folk tale, i.e a MYTH. The fact that people still take it seriously these days is comical. How can anyone be so naive?
On the other hand we have evolution, which is backed up by over a hundred years of scientific evidence and proof.
Oh gee, I wonder which one is true....
nuclearmaster2 2 days ago
Please, please don't bring creationist nonsense to schools!
masala505 3 weeks ago
creationism holds no merit in a science classroom. the creationism theory is so fallible, it would be an atrocity to students and hinders progress of humanity. creationists are much like flatists. take it to a sunday school, not a classroom
rabiv68 3 weeks ago
@rabiv68 Creationism theory? It isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis because it isn't based off observations. Its a myth.
letsgocaps8 2 weeks ago
let me sum it up. I don't know, therefore gawd.
MonochromaticEarth 3 weeks ago
That Eugenie Scott quote is totally taken out of context and is utter bullshit. She has explained that the "fairness" card is being used by the ID people to get their materials on the table instead of going thru the rigors of peer review. What's even more amazing is that this guy can spew bald-faced lies with a totally straight face.
gigisdad 1 month ago
PZ Meyers hit the nail on the head when he said he could sum up the entire argument for ID in less than a minute..ready? here goes: COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY
gigisdad 1 month ago
Evolution is NOT a fact and never has been, because there is simply no evidence for it. Transformation from ape to man over millions of years would leave behind millions and millions of gradual transitional forms, so where the hell are they? Even Colin Patterson the director of the British museum of natural history admits that no such fossil exists. And Darwin also admitted in chapter 6 of his book: "why do we not see innumerable transitional forms everywhere?".
clayden82 1 month ago
@clayden82 save your breath and shut up.
Ashtiany2 1 month ago
@clayden82 I dont know where youve gotten youre information from- but that isn't correct! none of it! there is enormous evidence for it at every paleontology lab at ant museum or university- visit one instead of a pastor. Transitionl fossils have been found-there are even videos on youtube where scientists hold them up and show them and proceed to explain them. and as far a s Mr Patterson saying that- can you cite where you got that information? I'm sure he'd like to know about it.
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
@clayden82 Why do you insist on quote mining? a. multiple transitional forms do exist, go to any natural history museum. b. you wouldn't expect to see "millions" due to punctuated equilibrium and the fact that fossilization is such a rare event, especially for small populations. And finally, you don't need the fossil record. Humans and chimps share endogenous retroviruses in the exact same location in our genome which would only be true if we had a common ancestor.
libalchris 1 month ago
@libalchris Creationists have a gap fetish so they think there should be a complete array of fossils for every single transition. They fill any gaps with God and don't listen to any evidence on the contrary and rehash the same empty arguments.
therunningtap 1 month ago
@therunningtap lol@ gap fetish.
gateshead1000 3 weeks ago
@therunningtap Well said. And after being so intolerant to gaps watch how they deal with gaps in their accounts. Hypocrisy. Can't have denial without it anyway. ID's don't only deep down not believe their own accounts, they pretend they believe their own self, to their own self. In other words they not only deep down don't believe what they believe, but also believe that if they believe hard enough that they believe, then they'll forget they don't believe. And some have succeeded.
hisnameisfrankie 3 weeks ago
@clayden82 you are clearly misinformed. evolution actually has tons of evidence backing it up. there are actually multiple transitional forms, which clearly contradicts your claim. and also, humans have only been around for thousands of years, not millions
Cheesetoon 3 weeks ago
"Creation Studies" ?? lol !! That's in the same building as "Santa Studies" and the "Legal Union of Elf workers" and the "Pink Unicorn Studies Department", no ?
Wretched retarded idiots.
"Intelligent Designer" ? What bullshit. Who designed these morons ?
allieron 1 month ago
@allieron It's still possible that life on earth came about via the intervention of an intelligence. It is a hypothesis that can legitimately be submitted to scientific scrutiny (science is, after all, the best method of determining truth we have come up with so far. Anybody who disagrees with this should put down the keyboard and return to the forests). But when someone tries to attribute said intervention to Zeus, or Mbombo or whoever, without similar scrutiny, I have a problem.
hisnameisfrankie 3 weeks ago
@hisnameisfrankie Fair enough.
allieron 3 weeks ago
it is not education to teach students something that is true,proved and fact and something that is untrue, myth and completely bereft of evidence and then tell them to make up thier own minds which to believe-that is irresponsible
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All evolutionists can insert their "science" inside their assholes.
chris241289 1 month ago
Omg, i'm SO fucking happy that i live in Europa! Seriously, if that BS is going to be thought in your SCIENCE classes i feel really sorry for you guys :o
JensAgain 1 month ago
@JensAgain I know right? Im in Australia where there is no creationist movement and everybody knows that evolution is a fact. I really feel for the normal smart american who have to put up with this!
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
@dancingnancy09 It's unbearable, I actually had to live in a fundamentalist town and go to a private school where creationism was taught as fact, and evolution wasn't taught at all, stupidity everywhere. I've had to learn everything about evolution on my own time to make up for what i wasn't taught.
libalchris 1 month ago
@libalchris oh my heart goes out- yeh see this is what I have such a big problem with- that violates your right to an education!! you shouldnt have to have gone through that!
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
you can't teach creation because its not facts. the bibile may or may not be true. you can't really prove god exists, all you can do is belive. that is just religion, not something that should be thought as hard facts. its silly when they try to shove religion down people throat. let students make their own choices.
theDudeAbides1100 1 month ago
I hate when people try to use polls to support their position.
So you asked a 1000 people who haven't got a clue about science what they think about teaching evolution vs creationism as science ... so what?
bustermk2 1 month ago
@bustermk2 Ask those same people to do some basic integration, 95% wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about. Therefore, Newton and Leibniz were wrong.
jknengr796 1 month ago
The host completely misrepresented Eugenie Scott. She recognizes Americans are swayed by emotional appeal to "fairness." But she explains that science is not a democratic process and that giving equal time to creationism actually wouldn't be fair. To get something taught in the science classroom, it must have explanatory power and must be put before the scientific community to be tested. It would not be fair to let ID bypass the scientific process everyone else has to goes through.
VirologistTim 1 month ago
You can believe in God and evolution. God as an intelligence thet kick-started evolution.
babsywoman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babsywoman
"You can believe in God and evolution. God as an intelligence thet kick-started evolution"
The ever expanding elastic band of religion.
If GOD existed and created mankind...then I'd have to say Im very dissapointed. Mankind is not particularly advanced or special. GOD could have created a species far more capable than our own. Why Create cancer, disease, psychologicial/pathological problems? I love listening to religious folk answer these questions.
DIGITALSCREAMS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Without Yoko by his side, Yukio Mishima would've been sad & lonely. [Lou Reed is weak, as weak as a reed. Why can't Oprah & Gayle swap brassieres? Because Oprah's Winnebagos are more undulant & pendulant. Oprah was arrested at the airport after 40 pounds of crack was discovered under her skirt.]
IconsOfTeleplay 1 month ago
5:39-6:25 lol, How much can one person say without actually saying anything....sheesh
Babylauncher3000 2 months ago 2
at 7:33 the polls don't show fairness of our culture, just ignorance.
cmlinback2355 2 months ago
If Intelligent Design was a science, what theories does it propose, and what applications does it have in the real world? How do we apply intelligent design to better our lives? And where does this leave people who work as evolutionary biologists?
jwoolaway 2 months ago
Creationism, though seems to be referring to Christianity, to me , it can include all religions which is based on God. Some religions do not have the concept of God.
So, to those who believes in intelligent design, you need to question yourselves, is it the intelligent design of Allah or Jesus or xyz ?
Nature and Evolution itself is complex. Complexity need not come from God only.
Religion A believer believes fully that his God is the only God.
Likewise, Religion B believer. U see!
smellyfry 2 months ago
See a great lecture called: story of life origins: the obvious version
Gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.
Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.
Suggests: if we put aside our preconditioning , and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE.
joflavius 2 months ago
I remember a tv show where scientists tried to use science to explain the technology in Star Wars- which is a FANTASY movie. Needless to say, most of the stuff in Star Wars couldn't be explained by modern science. The bible is no different.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Could archeaology be considered a science?, also what would someone who believes in intelligent design look for when using micro biology for evidence?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Umm...yeah...archeaology is a science, but their field isn't in fossils, it's artifacts. I think your confusing it with paleontology. There is no evidence for intelligent design, either. Just because something is too complex for one person to understand doesn't mean that a supernatural boogy man created it. Creation is a fantasy, period. If science doesn't have an answer for it, it doesn't mean that creationists can fill the gap with the spackle of god. Earth is NOT 6000 years old
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Capt your reply is an interesting one, firstly it shows me that your use to making presumptions, as i dont know that i was making any inclination towards fossils at all?, secondly i dont know that i have any issues with science?. I guess the question needs to be asked, what exactly is it that science doesant have an answer for, and does science need to have an answer for everything?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm OK then. To answer your questions: yes, archaeology is a science thou it isn't as fun as portrayed in Indiana Jones. Does science need to prove everything? No, but people want answers for everything and the only way to achieve answers is through science.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Its fair to say that science hasent an answer for everything, like how our dimension of time and space came into existence from within our dimension of time and space that never existed in the begining, or how life can spontaniously spring into existence from non life, however its also fair to say that it cant be a bad thing to be in the position of presumption and speculation, just as long as we can know where the line is between that and science.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm I love the whole, "life sprang up from non life" comment. At least with that comment, life came from something where as with the common religious view, life popped into existence from an invisible space wizard. The non life comment isn't even an accurate statement, either. None the less, science has not once said that has all of the answers to everything- quite the contrary. The only thing standing in the way of science is the dogmatic views of the bronze age. Pity.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Thats something i have never really gotten a grasp on, how it is that a belief in God as the creator is supposed to hinder science, when science is all about appreciating God in His creation by seeking to understand how He went about it, via the tool of science?. Just because one believes their to be a supernatural influence outside of our natural dimension, why should that stop one from investigating the natural, God is the very one that has gotten me interested in science.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Science works off facts and observation. Creationists cherry pick different parts of science and warp the data to "prove" their point. Any REAL scientist that says differently is labeled as a hieratic with an agenda against religion. That's wrong. Again, I go back to my original comment regarding Star Wars. Nobody can prove that a god exists. If he does, he is grossly mismanaged and should find something better than overzealous preachers and fictitious books to make his point.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Like i said "Just because one believes their to be a supernatural influence outside of our natural dimension, why should that stop one from investigating the natural", which reinforces the true statement that you made "Science works off facts and observation". I believe a supernatural God brought our physical dimension into existence, and for me just the one cell alone is jammed packed with design that is layed out by the blue print of the DNA code.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm If you believe in a supernatural wizard, be my guest. There is no evidence for it and science has found nothing to support it. By nature, man needs a security blanket to comfort them through life and an explanation for everything around them. Thousands of years ago, when man wasn't very bright, they created the mythology of the cosmic space wizard known as god to answer the questions for them. Can explain something? God did it. This became main stream and here we are today.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
Comment removed
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 I tend to agree that theres no evidence for a supernatural wizard, however its my belief that the very existence of our dimension of time and space is all the evidence we need for a Creator God outside of our own dimension, as nothing can come into existence from within inside of itself?, there has to be the existence of another dimension outside of this one with which would be eternal......
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Now, while its via evolutionary bias that causes for someone to assume man was not all that bright in the past, its via a biblical bias that gives the assumption man was very bright, as in the beginning man was perfect. Now lets look at the archeaological evidence and see which bias it supports?. Can you give me an example of how it was that not so bright man built the egyptian pyramids?, or how granite that can only be cut by diamond was given perfect right angles in Peru?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Easily: man thought earth was the center of the universe- they were wrong; they believed the earth was flat- wrong; they thought an eclipse was a giant snake eating the sun- wrong; religion enabled people to burn others fearing witches- wrong; they thought sinners were responsible for the plague- wrong. I can go on. You keep bringing up archaeology like it's some big thing. You give a kid some blocks, he'll make a house; ask that kid about the universe, they'll tell you a tale.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 So how is it was the pyramids accomplished, or the unmatched clean cut right angles in Peru, you havent answered the question?.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Are you saying god did these things? Some say aliens. Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll simplify: just because a person in that era was good at creating something didn't mean that they weren't ignorant about the world. Again, those same people thought the earth was flat. Those people in Peru: up until recently, they would shoot the sky during an eclipse trying to scare away the big snake. They all build cool shit, but I wouldn't go to them for answers about the universe.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Captain im not missing your point, your point is an effort to side skirt the issue, of how not so bright man was capable of the architectual feats accomplished that cant even be matched today?. See, what i believe to be the mistake being made here, comes in the form of speculation and assumption (a common one). Yes tribal man tend to believe in pig snakes, but was it the tribal man that was responsible for the AWSOME architectual accomplishments of the past?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 Or was it just like today, civilized man that accomplished those feats?. See a biblical bias will tell us that man has always been seperated into 2 camps, Tribal and Civil. And its the complexity of civil man that has followed the way of entrophy and has become less complex over time, up until the 20th century, where biblical prophecy keeps the bias in the right direction, and that is, in the last days knowledge will increase, with which the 20th century testifies to!
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Oy...bottom line: there is no proof of a god. To believe in one god means that you think everybody else is wrong with theirs. It's a paradox and too much blood has been spilled over it. Going back to the core creation issue, there is zero proof that a cosmic wizard poofed us into the world. Creationists cherry pick bits of science to try to justify their claims. That's just bogus. You can't explain fantasy with science.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 I guess the bottom line is that a person only sees what they want to see. When i bring together the incredible complexity of design found in nature and the cosmos alongside the fact that for it all to have a beggining, it needs a cause, i tend to see evidence for a supreme designer and God. However for the person that just cannot accept the possibility of the supernatural, there are alot of questions that may go un answered?...
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 And as for the blood that has been spilt, is that the result of religion or the interpretation of that religion. The corrupt roman catholic church tried to justify the pursecution of Christians and others within the inquistitions with a corrupt translation of the bible. In the same way it can be said that stalin and hitler spilt the blood they did via a corrupt translation of evolution (looking to exterminate the lower race to make room for the super race of people)???
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@CaptainAwesomeoh13 To have more of an idea of where im coming from, you may want to youtube "Who Created God? Where Did God Come From? Proof of God", the fellow in this presentation pretty much nails it with some strait up logic, and its the ball park of logic that you will find people like myself. Bless ya
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
There are literally 10,000,000 of fossils, in 1000s of institutions, over 100 of countries, with 100,000s of people spending careers studying these fossils, and NOT ONE fossil lies out of place. Sure there is fine tuning with twigs, but the shape of the tree is very well established (no rabbits in the Cambrian). So why do creationists state there are gaps in the fossil record?
Give a creationist the job of re cataloging the fossils in a single museum - maybe something will click.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan How do fossils form?, and how do we get a clam 4 feet in dimension to fossilize in the closed position?. Also, can you please give me some examples of where exactly the geologic column is found?, aswell as some examples of transitional fossils?. Thankyou
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm
Most high school text books describe the process of fossilization. I was not aware there were any fossilized clams - or even if any were fossilized in the closed position Not sure how this is significant though. There is no geographical location for the geologic column - is a general term for the rock strata we observe - oldest at the bottom, newest at the top. It is easy enough to Google "List of transitional fossils". It's an impressive list.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan The thing is is what i have found in high school text books is that a creature first has to die then over a long period of time like millions of years, mineralization occurs to bring about a fossil. I guess why i brought up the closed clam thing, is that it doesant seem to fit with that logic?. As for transitional fossils, the question that needed to be asked, what sort of translations are need to be made to determine what is a transitional fossil?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Are you saying that minerals would be unable to penetrate a closed clam, and so fossilisation of its interior would not happen ? I doubt that clams are completely watertight, even when shut, especially after millions of tons of rock has settled on top of them and distorted them. The minerals would penetrate inside eventually, settle and/or precipitate inside.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan Its not that the minerals wouldent be able to penetrate, what im saying is the fact that when a clam dies it tends to open, not to mention where they are being discovered. Its been said that it takes millions of years for the mineralization to take place, how do we get dead clams to keep their shells closed for that long, whilst making their homes on the tops of mountains?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm There is nothing special about "transitional" fossils. Most fossils are "transitional" fossils in that the creature evolved from an earlier species and subsequently evolved into one or more later species - but this is true of nearly every creature that has ever been.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan It does make sense that most fossils would be classed as transitional fossils as all living things are said to be in a constant state of evolution. However this is where i question as to wether we have moved from the arena of science and into the streets of assumption and translation?, with which i have to question the translation, as time and time again found in sediment thought to be millions of years old, we come across living fossils that show no sign of evolution?
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm
"all living things are said to be in a constant state of evolution".
This is not strictly true. Species will only evolve if there is an advantage in doing so - there is no imperative to "evolve" as such. Hence, a species that gains no such advantage will not evolve (or evolve only very slowly). These are the so called "living fossils".
Note that evolution has both been observed in nature, and has been reproduced experimentally in the lab.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan Amen, evolution has been observed, thats nots denied, what it is thats questioned, is when we move from micro to macro, wether we still call it science or speculation and assumption?
The thing i find hard to grasp about the explanation for living fossils, is that over the period of millions of years the enviroment stayed the same, so there was no need for evolution?.
Im sorry ToothbrushMan, its all just to hard for me to accept, for me, it just does not fit logic.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm Note that the term "living fossil" is a loosely defined term for a species that has evolved very little over millions of years, and so morphologically is very similar to the examples found the fossil record. It does not mean that a species has not evolved at all.
So every example of a "living fossil" is of a species that inhabits an environment that has not changed in millions of years - the ocean bottom is an ideal example. Hence the coelocanth and the horseshoe crab.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shakinahstorm One would not find a living fossil in an environment that has changed - as new predators, foods, competitors etc. are introduced, a species would have to evolve or become extinct.
"evolution has been observed, that's not denied"
"it's all just to hard for me to accept, for me, it just does not fit logic."
Trust the observation. The observation beats fallible human logic every time.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
The funny thing about creation "scientists" is that, no matter how many syllables are in the words they use, all I hear is "na na na I can't hear you", and all I see is a grown man with his fingers stuck in his ears.
TheWanderingPrimate 2 months ago
The "theory" of evolution has come a long way since then, and creationism is still where it was centuries ago! Life is complex, sure, but it's also chaotic and flawed. So we don't have every single fossil, does that make us wrong? What do the creationists have? Nothing! Creationism is no more than a tenuous hypothesis that cannot be tested! We have enough fossils to know what they're pointing to, at least I think so anyway, and so do many others. Fossils aren't perfectly laid out for us.
Weraisethenerdyflag 2 months ago
@7777ralph jesus is gay
BraedenLandry7 3 months ago
@BraedenLandry7 Fair dinkum mate, see this sort of thing is just simply uncalled for!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@7777ralph the bible is just a thing that way back in time woos a kumpherting thing but now its evulution
BraedenLandry7 3 months ago
Yeah the bible does have a better explanation, god made man, and knowing everything let Satan, who he must have created in the first place, trick eve and condemning human kind. Then he got a girl pregnant with his son, who also was himself to perform miracles so great everybody else forgot to write them down, then sacrifice himself to become a loophole for his own mistake. Waaaay better than the big bang.
DerpdaDerp1 3 months ago
@DerpdaDerp1 No way is it better then nothing exploding to give us everything we see today, not to mention life spontaniously springing into existence from a rock?!
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution vs Creation:
First Evolution:
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
7777Ralph 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation.
7777Ralph 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is Ancient from eternity. He has no beginning, but He is the beginning of everything and before anything living or dead.
“He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Hidden: and He has full knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 57:3)
akeello 3 months ago
this is stupid. if my kid is taught creationism in school im going to shit everywhere. why i dont beleive the earth was creative in 7 days, or that "its so good someone msut have created it", bc im not in second grade anymore is why. just bc people are dyng to keep the bible the dominant source of apparently every knowledge on the planet, doenst mean you fuck with my kids education into somehtin that is already, and hopefully forever, being swept under the rug
smooshmagoosh 3 months ago
@smooshmagoosh so your telling me its ok for them to teach about homo sexuallity in school because that people way off like but there can't teach intelligent design ? How about to to teach everything about the world makes everyone happy there is nothing wrong with that
DirtyEdon 3 months ago
@DirtyEdon: Yes, it's wrong to teach intelligent design because it's not scientific. It's saying "We don't know what caused this directly so w're just going to assume a specific, intelligent entity did it." That's like teaching doctors that germs are created from sin and you don't have to wash your hands if you're righteous. It's retarded...
As for teaching "about" homosexuality, that's no different than teaching "about" war or "about" religion or "about" sports. Knowledge of is not support of.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Dawkins himself has admitted alongside other evolutionists, that life seems to give the implification of intelligent design, if life gives the implification well then how is it we cant suggest that its science that has given the implification. I mean its science that has established that there is infomation stored within DNA, however we are not allowed to suggest that science has pointed towards an informant?.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm "Dawkins himself has admitted...life seems to give them implication of ID"
In what paper, lecture, debate, etc? I've never heard or read him (or any evolutionary biologist or biologist in general) every suggest such a preposterous claim other than in reference to "seems to suggest IF you don't take in to account this, this and THIS!"
The Rest of your post is just rehashing the original quoted lie. Provide evidence which supports your dubious claim or don't respond at all.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Richard Dawkins Intelligent Design and Space Aliens, youtube it.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Richard Dawkins Intelligent Design and Space Aliens, youtube it."
Really? I did. It was conjecture that was HIGHLY edited via Ben "I'm a completely self-righteous piece of shit who worked for Nixon" Stein where Dawkins says "I suppose you COULD say there MIGHT be some kind of signature in... and then he gets cut off, read his book to learn more... Check out the "ExpelledExposed" site sometime and prepare to have those little glass fragments you see as "evidence" shattered.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Expelled exposed is an interesting presentation, however the spin thats been put on each and individual case does not take away from the legalities of each case within the Expelled presentation, it still seems to me the back bone to all the cases has everything to do with what had been presented. Also lets not forget Exposed does not take away from what Dawkins admitted to, there may of been some editing, however it cant be denied as to whats been admitted to.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Exposed does not take away from what Dawkins admitted to"
Yes it does because they used a sound bite which cut him off in the middle of his answer. That is NOT the same thing as him "admitting" to anything! Why? Because what they cut out was the rest of his explanation of the HYPOTHETICAL concept of another more advanced race (alien) having "seeded" the planet and IN THAT CASE, "you MIGHT be able to find some kind of signature for a designer" in DNA. (more likely than "god")
J242 3 months ago
@J242 I guess the question needs to be asked, can there be a hypothesis without possibility?. Dawkins has "admitted" to there being a possibility, no matter how "nonsensical" he may feel that possibilty to be. The fact remains to entertain the possibility in any sort of way, is to recognize the impression of design within life :)
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm:
"Dawkins has "admitted" to there being a possibility, no matter how "nonsensical" he may feel that possibilty to be."
No, he has not. You still don't get it. The clip was edited to make people like you THINK he was "admitting" to a possibility but he was just trying to be courteous to his offensive interviewer and explain how in the highly unlikely scenario some "signature" might be found it could be via natural (not supernatural) means. That is NOT the same thing as admitting.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Sorry, might and impossibility are 2 differant things, no matter how you want to weave yaself around it. And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!, all you people ever seem to do is insult others for not accepting what you believe to be true, which is totally un called for!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: " And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!, all you people ever seem to do is insult others for not accepting what you believe to be true, which is totally un called for!"
Choosing to speak out of ignorance on a topic while claiming bronze age superstition and "magical creation myths" as fact is as intellectually insulting as believing you can breathe lava or swim through rock.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Like ive said its not my intention to be offensive!, what it comes down to, is that just as you would find it a huge leap of faith to believe that there wasent someone behind the design of that wrist watch your wearing with all its complexity, i find it just as hard in saying there wasent anyone behind the complexity of life. Choosing not to align scientific evidence with your worldview, is in no way the same as calling someone a piece of shit!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "And as for being rude, judging from the posts i come across daily on this thing, its the evolutionists holds the title on that one!"
So demanding evidence and rigorous peer review before recognizing something, then going so far as to utilize the science developed around it successfully for decades is being rude? Pointing out that the religious believers have no such standard for their claims but are considered equal is acceptable? I find THAT rude. Belief is easy and lazy.
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: " I guess the question needs to be asked, can there be a hypothesis without possibility?."
Yes, I can hypothesize that Darth Vader actually exists in a negative zone created by anti-matter which secretly controls our universe via super-string theory all I like, doesn't mean there's any possibility of it. Anyone can hypothesize anything, that's not the same as having a peer-reviewed theory that is accepted around the world as being valid. Again, education is a good thing...
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "here may of been some editing, however it cant be denied as to whats been admitted to."
Yes it can because he didn't admit anything. Stein kept pressing him and to sum up what he said, it was: "Well, if you really think there was some kind of creator, I GUESS it's within the realm of minute possibility there could be a more advanced race that seeded the planet and IF THAT WERE TRUE, we might be able to find some kind of "signature" in DNA but that's almost nonsensical..."
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Why on earth would anyone even give the possibility of intelligent design a nonsensical minute, if they werent admitting to the possibility?. In other words whats been admitted to here is the possibility of intelligent design. "We might be able to find some kind of signature", that to me is so close yet so far away from "its imposssible we could never find a signature?.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Why on earth would anyone even give the possibility of intelligent design a nonsensical minute, if they werent admitting to the possibility?"
No one is seriously giving ID any time as a legitimate possibility. Religious folks are bringing it up in an effort to force supernatural nonsense into science classes. We are simply responding in order to show how ridiculous the entire notion is. How in any way, can one test the idea of ID? You can't, its not science. End of story.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Now when it comes to religion, who is it thats religous exactly?. Now it can be agreed the naturalist evolutionist does not allow for the supernatural within their religion, however their natural religion involves placing faith in the time it takes for evolution to work. And no, a gull that can no longer mate with another gull on the otherside of the planet, fitted with all the other speculative evidence, this does not some up a good case for macro.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Now when it comes to religion, who is it thats religous exactly?"
Any and all who take stolen supernatural mythology as being in any way remotely factual. No testing to verify the claims, just assuming them to be correct. That's religious behavior regardless of the specific supernatural belief being told.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 If cut an pasted Christianity is what your getting at by the term "stolen mythology", its all to easy to accept a cut and pasted Christianity when in a position of ignorance, however its not through a lack of testing that ive become aware of its authenticity, its only through a lack of non bias testing that one can accept that Christianity is cut and pasted. A person can read what ever into anything, and your welcome to do that, not wise but welcome.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@J242 I believe in a creator, why cant i still do science, why cant i use science to appreciate the complexity of life that i believe points towards a creator?. I mean for me, finding infomation within DNA is whats to be expected when i hold onto a belief of a designer, if there were no info to be found, well then questions would need to be asked.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "In other words whats been admitted to here is the possibility of intelligent design. "
No it is not. It's the same thing as if you asked "but what about the people that believe they've seen flying unicorns" and a scientist responding "Well, that's patently absurd but if people honestly believe they've seen this, I "GUESS" one explanation could be that a horse with a bone defect was jumping and people thought they saw it "fly" because of a mirage." That's not legitimizing.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 See that does makes sense what your saying, however noone is saying they saw a flieing unicorn?, we are talking about ID, wether an alien race or God, its still ID. a horse with a bone defect is not a unicorn. Again, you can try weave around it which ever way you choose, it wont change the fundamentals of whats been said.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "wether an alien race or God, its still ID. a horse with a bone defect is not a unicorn."
Yet ID has no method for testing the veracity of the claims and as such is not in anyway scientific. It's assumption based on lack of knowledge and speculation only. A horse w/ a bone defect is not a unicorn, I agree, thus my point of mentioning that just because someone saw that from afar and BELIEVES they saw a unicorn doesn't make it true. Just as people BELIEVE in some creator doesn't.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Again, wether alien or God, its still ID. As for assumptions and speculations, this is exactly what i have been trieing to get at with evolution. Darwin founds himself at the galapagos, finds a variety of finches, and from that drew the conclusion that through natural selection all of life was brought into existence from one single living cell, that somehow appeared out of non living matter?. For me, that takes some serious speculation and assuming???, sorry but thats just to much!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm PS, thanks for being MUCH more civil and not nearly as irrational as the "Zebra" poster who doesn't even understand the concept of pattern-camouflage and the fact that lions are color-blind.
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "The Greatest Show on Earth"... It's available in bookstores and e-book retailers around the world. Oh wait, E-books are suggests wireless transmission of content between manmade devices infinitely beyond froze age knowledge so you won't bother to look into it. You'll just continue with your hypocrisy while typing away on your "magical communication system" given to you by one "god" or another right? Yeah... You're a hypocrite, just like all of your fellow sheeple.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Why are you people so into character assasination?, its so popular amongst you lot, it in itself speaks volumes!. Anyhow champ, i will leave it with ya, bless ya.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Why are you people so into character assassination?,"
What do you mean by "you people"? Sorry if intelligent, educated, rational people look down on you but that's all your own doing.
"its so popular amongst you lot, it in itself speaks volumes!."
Not nearly as popular as proper spelling, grammar and punctuation... I'd say your inability to even communicate coherently speaks far more about your own ineptitude but hey, I'm just referencing reality here.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 No sorry champ, the fact that unintelligent, uneducated, irrational people seem to get under the skin, it tells its own story. I mean come on champ, you have the truth thats all that matters isent it mate!, why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?, or Stieny is a piece of shit?, and it goes on and on and on.... Peace out champ!, relax and smile :)
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "the fact that unintelligent, uneducated, irrational people seem to get under the skin, it tells its own story. "
Yes it does, it says that people shouldn't tolerate the folks you specify (Not the OWS folk, much more the TP'ers thank you very much) and DON'T call me champ. You're likely not my elder and certainly not my superior. Do not speak down to me, you're not in a position to...
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm " mean come on champ, you have the truth thats all that matters isent it mate!, why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?,"
Is english your 2nd language? Is grammar, punctuation and proper spelling beyond you? PS, quit calling me "champ" unless you're willing to accept that's it's just short-hand for "champion" which I'm not & not trying to be.
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm "why is it that because us unintelligent people refuse to accept it, need threaten you so much to the extent of making premature judgements on our characters, like im a hypocrite?"
Read that question, read it nice and slow and THEN respond again.
Why would someone question ignorant opinions? Because ignorance causes racism, sexism and in general hatred against "the other" they aren't familiar with. Look at your responses here. You're a perfect example of this. Get an education.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Is that the same as being ignorant of the possibility for the existence of a creator God?. And im sorry that calling you a champ is offensive, as i happen to believe everyone are champions, because God doesant create anything less then that of a champion, mate your as much as a champ as i am. Bless ya :). Ps im looking at my responses and there only seems to be the one person making hateful remarks towards those unfamiliar with?, and there aint no hate in me :)
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm:
"Is that the same as being ignorant of the possibility for the existence of a creator God?."
Quote what you are referring to. I'm giving you the courtesy of such and I'm an atheist so the least you can do is respond in kind.
Regardless of you not addressing the point, the "possibility" of a so-called" creator" like your "god" cannot in ANY way be quantified, verified or proven. The entire concept of it's existence has to be taken solely on faith. Sorry, not enough for me.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 See the thing is, we look at the same evidence through differant bias, so our interpretation is obviously going to be differant, Everything you have written, i assume the same for macro evolution, it cannot be verified or proven. Its all to easy to prove variations between species, however to say that those variations are going to eventually bring about more of a complexity of that species is questionable, when observable mutations encourage entrophy, opposite of whats expected.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm "See the thing is, we look at the same evidence through different bias"
There is no bias when it comes to observable fact backed up by decades of tests which support the concept to the point where we can get expected results by forcing a process. That alone should end the discussion but you folks of faith still won't just accept the reality. No surprise, it took your kind over a hundred years to accept that we orbit the sun, not the other way around.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 The evolutionary world view is one that has tried to cram the evidence to fit, this has been happening throughout the ages, right back to when Haekle tried to make a name for himself. See the thing is, today what is seen as evidence for evolution, tommorrow is disregarded. This is the norm when that comes with the cramming behaviour. And as for Galileo, "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.", the words of a devout Christian!
.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "The evolutionary world view is one that has tried to cram the evidence to fit"
The evidence LED to the concept which after years of research and validation led to the scientific theory after being put through the ringer by other scientists throughout the world. That's the scientific method itself. How can you possibly sit there and try and claim what you said?
J242 3 months ago
@J242 No, a Darwinian theory that has been kept alive today by a people that simply do not want to entertain the thought of an existant God of who they would have to be accountable to. Dont know why an individual would look at God in that light, i mean to come to know the creator of all that with which we can appreciate with science, in a personal relationship, is not only open to everyone, but its the greatest opportunity for anyone to take advantage of!, includeing you!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm:
As for your Galileo bit, you forget to mention his being locked up by the church under house arrest for "daring" to teach observable fact because the CHURCH deemed it heresy to disagree with them. Yeah, real bad example there. Utter, complete failure.
PS, why not address the points I've raised with information that can challenge them? I know you can't intellectually refute any of it but you're outright ignoring everything I refer you to. WTF? That's just nonsensical.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Nonsensical, thats a cool word :) Thats right, the same church that had persecuted all Christians of the day, even Christians that were translating the bible into english in the effort of opening up the bible to a greater crowd. A corrupt catholic church who had been tried to defend pagan dogma, the same church that still to this today proclaims Mary as the mother of God, its also the same church today that accepts the theory of evolution!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "A corrupt catholic church who had been tried to defend pagan dogma"
You mean like "Christmas", "Easter" and more? Also, without the Catholic church, your "christian" religion wouldn't even exist so you might want to keep that in mind. But hey, we have modern evangelicals who are just as corrupt and hateful and millions on X-ians follow them. The problem is, you all disagree on what to believe thinking only YOU know the "real truth" and it's pretty funny to watch the hypocrisy.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 The celebration of the birth, death and resurrection has nothing to do with pagan dogma, the only thing it has in common, is Christmas shares the same date as a pagan celebration. And as for easter, if people want to hand out eggs to each other that came from a rabbit, its their choice, however this has nothing to do with the death and resurrection of my saviour. And NO, the catholic church tried to stamp out Christianity and failed!. As for corrupt evangelists, its their choice, not Gods
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "The celebration of the birth, death and resurrection has nothing to do with pagan dogma"
12 apostles, 12 months. 3 wise men follow the star of bethlehem (Sirius B which the three stars of Orion's belt line up towards) and near the spring equinox the "sun (not SON) is risen". The SUN goes down with no lateral advancement in the sky for a period of three days during the fall solstice than the SUN again rises.
Everything about X-ianity is based on pagan mythology.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Again, read into it what ever you wish, not wise but welcome.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: Easter was Ostara from the pagans and as for the bunny? A pagan symbol of fertility associated with the coming of spring/end of the winter. XMas? Labeled to line up with the Yule traditions and persian Saturnalia. Halloween? Converted by x-ians to downplay Samhain. The list goes on and on as well. Everything about X-ianity was stolen from previous cultures from the Zorastrian's Zora to the Egypt's Horus and even the greek myths. Yet somehow that's more true than science? lol
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Cut n Pasted Christianity, sorry J2, but that has fallin on its face. However like i said your welcome to believe whats been read into it :)
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "i assume the same for macro evolution, it cannot be verified or proven. "
talkorigins dot org /faqs/macroevolution dot html
You are wrong. Your kind is always claiming no evidence but when it's presented, forgetting that claim and claiming something else is an example of no evidence. The phylogenetic record alone is proof of macroevolution regardless of your willing choice not to accept it. You can choose to believe water isn't a liquid, that doesn't mean its actually dry.
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "when observable mutations encourage entrophy, opposite of whats expected."
You are speaking about individual mutations which are much more common which is not the same as the gradual adaptation involved with evolution. However, if a noticeable physical mutation like say, a 6th toe and finger on each foot and hand were a dominant genetic trait and that person had a multitude of children (let's say they are mormons) you'd see many more people with the mutation. x-x6-x36-x216, etc
J242 3 months ago
@J242 The reason for why these mutations are so common, is because theyre "observable". The way i see it, is that mutations play around with existing info, wether that info be dormant or not, and what it is being observed is the scrambling of existing info. It doesant matter how many times we play round with the tuner knobs on a radio, we are never going to end up with a Television?, infact what it is that we are going to end up with, is a worn out radio.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "and what it is being observed is the scrambling of existing info." Well, you'd be wrong to think that. Just as we can force mutations upon the offspring of creatures via chemical alterations pre-pregnancy and in-utero, we can also use genetic, chemical and other methods to alter already existing life which can indeed pass the traits onto potential offspring. It's not "changing what is already there" it's a matter of inserting new material which forces changes to the source.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 So we have a tool that we can use to encourage the scrambling of info?
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "So we have a tool that we can use to encourage the scrambling of info?"
*Facepalm*... NO. We have methods which ALTER the DNA of an individual to the point where NEW CODE is generated as a result (i.e.; wasn't part of their original genetic makeup originally??!!). Scrambling doesn't create anything new, it just shuffles what's already there. We can force our own bodies to alter their own genetic makeup and create new strings for a variety of purposes and intents.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 LOL!, be gentle with yaself mate, like ive already said dont allow for us un educated people frustrate you so much, try a smile it really does help, even a forced one. Even if what your saying is factual, it still comes down to the fact that its via manipulation for it to work, guided process, and for it to happen by un guided processes again and again and yet again right up to the complexity of life we have today, 5 billion yrs???, no way???!!!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm And no, enviromental guidence could not produce the complexity of life we have today in such short amount of time!, even if i am giving you that extra amount of time from 4.6 billion years.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "And no, enviromental guidence could not produce the complexity of life we have today in such short amount of time!,"
We have observed complexity of thousands of species of bacteria, fungi and single-celled organisms "erupt" from mineral rich water under the right heat conditions (similar to what we believe primordial earth to have been like) in a matter of weeks. 4.6 billion years? PLENTY of time... You need to educate yourself better on this before forming your opinions.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 I may need to educate myself, however this is differant from being indoctrinated into "believing" what you people want to believe. The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "however this is differant from being indoctrinated into "believing" what you people want to believe."
It doesn't take indoctrination to recognize the facts of readily observable scientific realities. We have a massively detailed fossil record for hundreds of species showing the transition between different animals from previous shared ancestors. Just because you CHOOSE not to recognize that only means you are ignoring the reality of the situation and that's all on you.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Im in total agreeance with you here J2, It doesn't take indoctrination to recognize the facts of readily observable scientific realities, however it does take indoctrination to force those facts into a presupposition. "We have a massively detailed fossil record", no, what you have is, is exactly what we have, billions of bones in the dirt alongside an interpretation (speculation), like the bones of the archaeoraptor?
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "no, what you have is, is exactly what we have, billions of bones in the dirt alongside an interpretation (speculation), like the bones of the archaeoraptor?"
No, like I said, we have a very detailed fossil record based on the age of the fossils & the transitions observed as the age of these fossils gets shorter and shorter. You may think it's all "just a bunch of bones in the dirt" but then how do you explain complete skeletons in everything from tar to ash to sand?
J242 2 months ago
@J242 Fossils that have been dated by a non existing geological column with which that column was dated by the fossils?. No, you have an interpretation of bones found in the dirt, OR bones in tar, ash or sand.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!"
Wrong...
First off, we HAVE created artificial life via synthesized DNA (yportal dot com/scientists-create-life-from-nothing-first-synthetic-cell/) and secondly, we have OBSERVED the creation of proteins into amino acids into DNA from innate materials in underwater volcanoes. Voila!
J242 3 months ago
Comment removed
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@J242 Come and see me when you find away to fit that DNA within your own cell that has been built from scratch, rather then borrowing one?.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Come and see me when you find away to fit that DNA within your own cell that has been built from scratch, rather then borrowing one?."
They have built SYNTHETIC DNA and injected it into an emptied bacterium cell, triggering it to life. Yes, the synthetic DOES fit within cells and is being investigated for human trials as we speak. Do you even read what I refer you to? Really, I go out of my way to try and provide examples for you but you don't even read them do you? How rude.
J242 2 months ago
@J242 LOL!, "how rude"!, thats great value, lol... :) So, tell me is this how it happend within the primordial soup. What this tells me, is that when injecting Synthetic DNA into a pre existing cell, we can boot start a cell. You are replicating the design in life, thats all, you are not creating it!. However, it is impressive science.
shakinahstorm 2 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "The fact will always remain, that even if you were able to create life from non living material in a lab (which will never be done), the only evidence this would be for, is intelligence!"
See, the thing is, you don't know enough about this to hold informed or educated opinions on the matter. You have several times proven this by passing rampantly false assumptions as fact that can indeed be confirmed as valid fact. We are ONLY able to create based on learning from nature.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 sorry :(
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "It doesant matter how many times we play round with the tuner knobs on a radio, we are never going to end up with a Television?"
Not in any way a valid (or anything remotely resembling realistic) analogy. Firstly, it's a limited set of options. Secondly, no one is saying we're going to take an ant and convert it into a whale which is basically what you're suggesting with your radio to TV analogy.
I'd recommend studying forced evolution of bacteria sometime...
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Sorry J2 but an ant into a whale, how is that any differant from a single cell to complex life as we know it?. And by un guided processes?, that takes the cake, sorry. Bless ya
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "how is that any differant from a single cell to complex life..."
*facepalm x 2* Single cell life forms are nearly infinitely malleable. Take 4 different petri dishes filled with the same single celled life forms (raised from the same colony) and put each of them through completely different conditions with different food sources and you will get completely different results. We do this NOW and know it to be fact. Quick question, do you even know what a vestigial appendage is?
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Vestigial Appendage, is that the thing in my lower back that without it i would have to wear nappies, the tail bone?. The very tail bone that was once attached to a tail that for some reason i would no longer need, when i could think of many advantages to having a tale today, the tale that was so popular with Haekel, the very tail that if it were even so, we did loose an existing tail, would only account for the loss of info? Cheers
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Vestigial Appendage, is that the thing in my lower back that without it i would have to wear nappies, the tail bone?"
Much more than that. Tonsils, wisdom teeth, lower appendix, many people born with 6th toes or fingers, "finger bones" in the rear flukes of whales for when they were once land mammals, ACTUAL tails on humans (A few cases reported every year in the US alone), the list goes on and on and on. There is no use for them but because they don't harm us, they remain.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 No such thing as vestigial, Without those bones in the whale, they would have trouble multiplieing, without the appendix, life span is shortend. I mean i can still drive a car without headlights, that doesant mean the car doesant need head lights?. All this could ever account for if it could account for anything, is the loss of infomation, which in no way can this bring about more of a complexity!, and no, bacterial imunity does not account for me growing fins???
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "No such thing as vestigial"
Seriously? So, then why does the blind Spalax have eyes? The Proteus has useless non-light receiving eyes covered by layers of skin. Most pythons have vestigial pelvises that float unconnected to their spine! Dandelions reproduce via apomixis yet still produce sterile pollen, flightless beetles with fully formed wings under their shell, even us humans have the coccyx where our fused caudal vertebrae once held tails and the list goes on and on and on.
J242 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm:
It helps if you are going to try and debate with someone about the merits of an advanced science like evolution that you are at least able to spell the words you use properly. Sheesh... I've held back from saying anything until now out of courtesy but it's kind of offensive when you cannot even be bothered to use proper spelling and grammar.
J242 3 months ago
@J242 Im sorry that my spelling has such an effect on you, however i dont believe wisdom comes in the way one spells ;) And when it comes to the technicalities of evolution, the very fact that it needs to be so technical, of in itself says alot. I have found in life, that the plausability of something only gets weaker the more technical it becomes in its explanation.
shakinahstorm 3 months ago
@shakinahstorm: "Im sorry that my spelling has such an effect on you, however i dont believe wisdom comes in the way one spells ;)"
It's not about wisdom, it's about courtesy. It's also about the time taken to respond. Hasty responses in general show more errors than thought out responses.
"And when it comes to the technicalities of evolution, the very fact that it needs to be so technical, of in itself says a lot."
Yes, it says it's a SCIENCE and not a "belief". Science is technical.
J242 2 months ago
@J242 No its not about courtesy, its about geniune poor spelling!, however im not sure that my spelling is all that bad?, I mean have i made any mistakes within this paragraph, take out the red pen of correction and mark me :)
shakinahstorm 2 months ago