human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline

JesusSaves
Theist
Posts: 108
Joined: 2006-06-25
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Lol... this is funny how scientist looks at this... did you know that science contradicts itself? or atleast the theory of evolution makes it contradicting

"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
did you know that science contradicts itself? or atleast the theory of evolution makes it contradicting

We knew that Christians were capable of spewing ignorance and or dishonesty without backing their claims up. Would you like to try backing your claims up, or do you want everyone with half a brain to just laugh at how ridiculous your post was? Feel free... back up your claim.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
Lol... this is funny how scientist looks at this... did you know that science contradicts itself? or atleast the theory of evolution makes it contradicting

When you've an intelligent comment or criticism, let us all know.

Welcome to the boards.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JesusSaves
Theist
Posts: 108
Joined: 2006-06-25
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

firstly, since chance is a big bummer to evolution...

time + nothing = everything

1 don't think chance is a reasonable answer to how and why we got here

that doesn't add up very well... like expecting a rock to grow in a empty room.. won't happen.

and especially since human eggs are more technical than of a animal

and the basic laws of science which include the laws of effect and their causes...

energy conservation and entropy-- which strengthens the idea of creation
and just flat out detroys the hypothesis.

Psalm 19:1-4 says

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. there voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Kent Hovind lover in the house.

JesusSaves wrote:
firstly, since chance is a big bummer to evolution...

time + nothing = everything

Point out where evolutionists say there was nothing.

You've been lied to and in turn are now lying to us. Get yourself educated.

Quote:
1 don't think chance is a reasonable answer to how and why we got here

Our science expert would agree. Chance isn't a good answer, and God is ten times worse.

Maybe you should stick to asking questions, because so far you're positive assertions are fallacious (in the other thread) and in this thread you banged out two strawmen in a row. You could also head to www.atheismfor12yearolds.com and see if you can convince some of them with these completely ignorant arguments.

Quote:
that doesn't add up very well... like expecting a rock to grow in a empty room.. won't happen.

Or maybe expecting that we all came from dirt! (that's where your bible says we came from)

Let me guess, next will "time" be our god?

Quote:
and especially since human eggs are more technical than of a animal

Humans are animals, nut ball.

Quote:
and the basic laws of science which include the laws of effect and their causes...

energy conservation and entropy-- which strengthens the idea of creation
and just flat out detroys the hypothesis.

More crap. Care to prove that claim, or want to wait around for Yellow#5 to tear it a new asshole?

Quote:
Psalm 19:1-4 says

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. there voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

Aww, that's so cute. You're quoting psalms in a thread about Evolution. Adorable, just adorable! :smt018

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JesusSaves
Theist
Posts: 108
Joined: 2006-06-25
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Ok... so it wasn't created by chance.... so when did the molecules and such say-- I think I will create a animal...

"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
Ok... so it wasn't created by chance.... so when did the molecules and such say-- I think I will create a animal...

You really want me to answer that retarded question? Maybe you should rephrase it in a way that doesn't make you look so dishonest. Molecules can't talk, and I wont entertain the thought.

Additionally this last statement of yours has nothing to do with your original proposition which is that "science contradicts itself." Care to take another stab at that one?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
Ok... so it wasn't created by chance.... so when did the molecules and such say-- I think I will create a animal...

Hey, savin' jesus...may I ask how old you are? I'm not gonna get into this one, cause I think Sapient and Yellow can pretty much own this thread, however, I was curious.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


JesusSaves
Theist
Posts: 108
Joined: 2006-06-25
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

im 18, thanks for asking.. been a christian for about 1 year. me and my dads faith are totally different. I think I am more spiritual and he is well less spiritual..

"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY


SAVAGE
Superfan
SAVAGE's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-06-24
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
Lol... this is funny how scientist looks at this... did you know that science contradicts itself? or atleast the theory of evolution makes it contradicting

LOL........did you se the.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........man thats rich.....HEHEHEHEHEHEhEhEhe....I am gonna die, he said that....hahahahahahahaha...science...bwahahah...evolution.....and the ,......LOL.........ROFL.....contradicts the.....HAhAHAHAHQAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I cant breathe........hahahahahahhaahahahahahaahahah...........shit I just pissed all over the carpet......wheres the dog so i can blame him.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Damn that was funny.

So um have you read the book that shows you some of the greatest contradictions?

You have it in your undie drawer its called the bible.

A MESSAGE TO ALL THEISTS:

 

CRY ME A RIVER

 

BUILD ME A BRIDGE

 

BUT IN THE NAME OF NOTHING GET OVER IT.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

I was just telling Jesussaves about your recent de-conversion from Jesus belief and here you are. Look at how quick you turn around, just months ago people would've been laughing at you. Yeah it's funny, but I don't know if we'll show him the light by laughing at him. It's not entirely his fault he was brainwashed.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

JesusSaves wrote:
Ok... so it wasn't created by chance.... so when did the molecules and such say-- I think I will create a animal...

No, and if you knew the first thing about the science pertaining to the origins of life, you'd never put forth such a ridiculous straw man argument.

Your take on how life arose and why (abiogenesis) is badly misinfomed.

The early earth was teaming with amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, organics, etc - these are the building blocks of life - this is the proverbial "primordial ooze".

The first "life form" was certainly not as complicated as even a bacteria or a single cell - it may have been simply a self replicating molecule or piece of RNA that cobbled together via well known and documented chemical interactions. These self-replicating molecules exist in nature and have alse been engineered. Once replication begins, the law of natural selection kicks in and those that out replicate their counter parts become dominate and better at replicating. Life as we know it rose from these humble molecules.

Another, similar view is that catalysts, most likely enzymes or ribosomes, regenerated themselves via a catalytic cycle - regeneration is essentially replication, especially if a small piece of the catalyst breaks off and begins to regenerate elsewhere.

The main problem is that most creationists see abiogenesis like this:

simple chemicals ------> fully formed organisms.

Educated people see it like this:

simple chemicals --> polymers --> replicating polymers --> hypercycle --> protobiont --> simple single celled organism

(and that's grossly simplified)

And again, this is not a totally random process, it is a logical progression that follows from natural phenomena.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JesusSaves
Theist
Posts: 108
Joined: 2006-06-25
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
JesusSaves wrote:
Ok... so it wasn't created by chance.... so when did the molecules and such say-- I think I will create a animal...

No, and if you knew the first thing about the science pertaining to the origins of life, you'd never put forth such a ridiculous straw man argument.

Your take on how life arose and why (abiogenesis) is badly misinfomed.

The early earth was teaming with amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, organics, etc - these are the building blocks of life - this is the proverbial "primordial ooze".

The first "life form" was certainly not as complicated as even a bacteria or a single cell - it may have been simply a self replicating molecule or piece of RNA that cobbled together via well known and documented chemical interactions. These self-replicating molecules exist in nature and have alse been engineered. Once replication begins, the law of natural selection kicks in and those that out replicate their counter parts become dominate and better at replicating. Life as we know it rose from these humble molecules.

Another, similar view is that catalysts, most likely enzymes or ribosomes, regenerated themselves via a catalytic cycle - regeneration is essentially replication, especially if a small piece of the catalyst breaks off and begins to regenerate elsewhere.

The main problem is that most creationists see abiogenesis like this:

simple chemicals ------> fully formed organisms.

Educated people see it like this:

simple chemicals --> polymers --> replicating polymers --> hypercycle --> protobiont --> simple single celled organism

(and that's grossly simplified)

And again, this is not a totally random process, it is a logical progression that follows from natural phenomena.

did all this start when the universe began? because everything in this world seems to have a beginning and an end... and surely if it has a beginning then it will certainly end.

"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Jesussaves...

I'm not siding against you here... if you read my posts you'll see I'm not an avid fan of evolution, but I'm not seeing a lot of logic in your posts. There is a lot of information one way or the other to sift through, evolution, creation, old-earth, young-earth, gap theory, yada yada yada. All claim to be %100 right. A lot of it is boo boo. If you want a good place to start... walk away from Hovind for a sec... Lee Strobel's The Case for the Creator is a good start. Doubts about Darwin by thomas woodward. Darwin's Black box, etc. And read some of the articles that Larry points you to. Read up on what evolution is really saying. Don't come in here picking a fight, but try to learn. There are a lot of smart people in here looking at a lot of evidence.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:

Lee Strobel's The Case for the Creator is a good start.

:shock: A good start to ensure idiocy?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Yes Sapient... a good start to ensure idiocy. That's exactly what I meant.

If you have read it then then I'll acknowledge your educated opinion. If you haven't, then that was an irrational statement from ignorance.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

The lack of logic, intelligence and common sense from the theists in this forum makes me want to bang my head againsty a wall! Puzzled

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

The early earth was teaming with amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, organics, etc - these are the building blocks of life - this is the proverbial "primordial ooze".

The first "life form" was certainly not as complicated as even a bacteria or a single cell - it may have been simply a self replicating molecule or piece of RNA that cobbled together via well known and documented chemical interactions. These self-replicating molecules exist in nature and have alse been engineered.

This has been demonstrateably inacurate. There is no evidence for the "primordial ooze." The "teaming of amino acids etc." would have required a nitrogen rich environment which is not what we find in the geological record. There is no physical evidence for this ooze. It is scientific speculation repeated as a mantra of fact and readily accepted to support other theories.

If it existed it didn't exist long enough to leave any evidence so there is not ample enough time from when the rocks cooled off, to the appearance of life for the amount of amino acids to form and fold into the correct and complicated proteins. For "simple RNA" to be the replicating beginning of life would require to sets of identical strands of RNA to form next to eachother which is hopeful wishing and unscientific theorizing.

The engineered self-replicating molecules were either formed in the wrong environment (Miller experiment) or have been the wrong amino acids... not the correct "handed." And even in the Miller experiment the amino acids reacted with other chemicals to produce a brown ooze that was not life supporting. When the experiments have be done in the right environment without "intelligent intervention" by the scientists, the "organic molecules" formed were cyanide and formaldehyde... hardly the building blocks of life. Scientists are very much at a loss in the realm of Origins Science.

Biochemist Klaus Dose, a leading origin-of-life expert: "At present all discussions on pinciple theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." ---Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998).

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

The early earth was teaming with amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, organics, etc - these are the building blocks of life - this is the proverbial "primordial ooze".

The first "life form" was certainly not as complicated as even a bacteria or a single cell - it may have been simply a self replicating molecule or piece of RNA that cobbled together via well known and documented chemical interactions. These self-replicating molecules exist in nature and have alse been engineered.

This has been demonstrateably inacurate. There is no evidence for the "primordial ooze." The "teaming of amino acids etc." would have required a nitrogen rich environment which is not what we find in the geological record. There is no physical evidence for this ooze. It is scientific speculation repeated as a mantra of fact and readily accepted to support other theories.

Wrong, and completely misinformed as usual.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

no physical evidence for assumed primordial soup theory. on to the next.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

"So we must ask - what did Pasteur prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally, only theoretically, "

Gotta love those irrefutable theories...

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

what a big if.

This was a nifty history lesson, but no empirical evidence for the prebiotic ooze. Just speculation. a big if.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

Probablility bla bla bla.

If you read my post, you'll see I didn't say anything about the standard probability argument. No evidence for primordial soup. that's what I said. I'm bored of speculations.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

"There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997). "

Ok... so basically we agree that the primordial ooze has as much evidence for its existence as the teenage mutant ninja turtles' ooze. Maybe I'll start doing experiments on the turtle ooze so it will be considered scientific too.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/c9b9d2e44adbd969842829f222f29d81/miscdocs/originoflifeinanutshell.pdf#search='primordial%20sou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_lifep%20evidence'

It can be argued that the most crucial challenge unanswered by this theory is how the relatively simple organic building blocks polymerise and form more complex structures, interacting in consistent ways to form a protocell. For example, in an aqueous environment hydrolysis of oligomers/polymers into their constituent monomers would be favored over the condensation of individual monomers into polymers. Also, the Miller experiment produces many substances that would undergo cross-reactions with the amino acids or terminate the peptide chain.

Your primordial ooze theory that supports the evolution theory doesn't seem so solidified. It actually sounds pretty sparadic and speculatory.

But... I'm sure your faith in the primordial soup will be well founded by future scientific discoveries... like the rest of evolution.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

no physical evidence for assumed primordial soup theory. on to the next.

There's been physical evidence.

Here's a good read.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

Probablility bla bla bla.

If you read my post, you'll see I didn't say anything about the standard probability argument. No evidence for primordial soup. that's what I said. I'm bored of speculations.

Thus proving creation true how? Oh yeah, that's not speculation....

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

StopEvangelists wrote:
nacker wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

Probablility bla bla bla.

If you read my post, you'll see I didn't say anything about the standard probability argument. No evidence for primordial soup. that's what I said. I'm bored of speculations.

Thus proving creation true how? Oh yeah, that's not speculation....

Every post I get the same reaction. I say something like... "hey this theory isn't backed up by much empirical evidence. It's more of a string of speculatory theories."
Then the response comes...
"Oh well then, I guess it must be god or creation huh. You are a moron. Where's the evidence for that."
All I said was that there is no evidence for the primordial soup. Stop jumping to conclusions. I wasn't attacking your PHILOSOPHY of materialism. I did that in another thread.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

no physical evidence for assumed primordial soup theory. on to the next.

There's been physical evidence.

Here's a good read.

I like this quote:
"It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes?a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science?it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years."

A necessary assumption to a materialistic philosophy of science.

I scanned the article (didn't have time at this point to read the whole thing) and found no evidence for the existence of the primordial soup. I found a description of how difficult the speculation of origin science is. A bunch of lab. experiments going in different directions based on a conjecture of what might have been.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

What do you have nacker to propose in its place? Give us something. Cause you've yet to back up any of your remarks with a theory that replaces what you ignore. You're too lazy to read through an article but still consider yourself as an authority on the topic even though you have nothing to say. You're delusional.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

OpiateCopulation wrote:
What do you have nacker to propose in its place? Give us something. Cause you've yet to back up any of your remarks with a theory that replaces what you ignore. You're too lazy to read through an article but still consider yourself as an authority on the topic even though you have nothing to say. You're delusional.

I scanned the entire article, but did not wish to re read the same speculations I've found in all the other articles I've had to read for this thread. Since you read it so scrupulously, would you site the quote that details the evidence for the ooze?

I never claimed to be an expert. I'm just asking questions, and the more I ask the more I see evolution as a dogma of belief. The theory you put so much hope into is not as sturdy as you want it to be. Even the very basis, the very beginning of the theory... your soup, is a speculation... a necessary assumption.

Although I do like the idea of a new theory. Don't you wish our scientists would be open to a new theory instead of propping up this one with new and old speculations.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:

I never claimed to be an expert. I'm just asking questions, and the more I ask the more I see evolution as a dogma of belief. The theory you put so much hope into is not as sturdy as you want it to be. Even the very basis, the very beginning of the theory... your soup, is a speculation... a necessary assumption.

Although I do like the idea of a new theory. Don't you wish our scientists would be open to a new theory instead of propping up this one with new and old speculations.

They are open to new theories and always have been.

It just seems that being a theist makes you unable to actually learn about the subject and for some reason turns lab results into speculation no matter how much evidence there is for them. It's too bad... you sound like you might be rational... well you actually don't... since the majority of your questions seem to be rhetorical (you never accept any answer or any evidence if it?s not what you wanted) so you actually sound like the perfect example of a virus with legs. What virus you say? Your god.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:

I never claimed to be an expert. I'm just asking questions, and the more I ask the more I see evolution as a dogma of belief. The theory you put so much hope into is not as sturdy as you want it to be. Even the very basis, the very beginning of the theory... your soup, is a speculation... a necessary assumption.

Although I do like the idea of a new theory. Don't you wish our scientists would be open to a new theory instead of propping up this one with new and old speculations.

They are open to new theories and always have been.

It just seems that being a theist makes you unable to actually learn about the subject and for some reason turns lab results into speculation no matter how much evidence there is for them. It's too bad... you sound like you might be rational... well you actually don't... since the majority of your questions seem to be rhetorical (you never accept any answer or any evidence if it?s not what you wanted) so you actually sound like the perfect example of a virus with legs. What virus you say? Your god.

I am learning. like we all are... like the scientists are. I do think that, even though there are some parts of evolution that seem to fall into place, the majority of evidence pushes hard against the theory. I'm not trying to attack you or even your beliefs per say. But evolutionary science has become an irrefutable religion. No matter how much evidence is presented, it can be written off by saying, "we'll learn more later." It is very possible that using this line of logic, evolution may become just like the religions you dislike so much. What if the "scientific method" as it is accepted may actually be anti-free thought? The collective theory that says, "Shut up. I'll tell you what to believe. If you don't understand it, or if it doesn't make rational sense, get over it. It will later when you grow up a little bit. You can ask questions... as long as you ask them the right way. We'll tell you what the right way is."

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

You're someone who pushes the answer of god and you're telling me the scientific method is anti-free thought? That's funny.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

That was kind of the point Op. The question was... what if the science that you serve has become the very thing you hate.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
That was kind of the point Op. The question was... what if the science that you serve has become the very thing you hate.

Too bad you have nothing to bring forth to support your claim.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Op.

Have you not been reading??

There is no proof of even the beginning of the evolution of life... i.e. the primordial soup. It is assumed to exist b/c it is necessary to support the theory. Theory supported by speculation.
We've been taught evolution via dishonest methods... faked embryo drawings, inconclusive(at best) Miller experiment, deceitful transitions, propaganda in illustrations, theories based on assumptions, only taught these dishonest ways to support evolution... not told about things like the Cambrian explosion - weak fossil record, the weakness of the mutation/selection mechanism, irreducible complexity, punctuated equilibrium to try to deal with the weak fossil record, etc. Any questions of such are met with animosity and swept under the rug as ignorance that will "most definitely" be reconciled later.

This theory seems to have the monopoly on free thought.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Quote:
There is no proof of even the beginning of the evolution of life... i.e. the primordial soup. It is assumed to exist b/c it is necessary to support the theory. Theory supported by speculation.

Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Theory is nothing more than speculation. You continue to state speculation as if it is an epiphany you?ve solely come to. There are though varying degrees of theory and varying degrees of speculation, believing and expressing otherwise is just generalizing selfishly for your own viewpoint. Also, there?s something very unnerving about your stance against speculation and for instead what you like to call ?fact?. I?m using quotations because from what I?ve observed, your idea of ?fact? has no groundings in what it actually is. There?s no fact without speculation and no theory without fact and speculation. If there was we?d have no direction to go, nothing to base anything on. The construction of fact itself cannot take place without theory otherwise the understanding of said fact would be impossible. There would be no understanding and fact would mean nothing.

Speculation:
a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

How is this negative? How does this unravel the theory of evolution when it is in it?s self the foundation? Does the existence of speculation within Einstein?s theory of relativity disavowal his discoveries? Does Newton?s speculation of mathematics, gravity, and everything his physics did somehow make his discoveries irrelevant? How does this effect Darwin?s speculation on what he observed?

Quote:
Any questions of such are met with animosity and swept under the rug as ignorance that will "most definitely" be reconciled later.

It seems like your final sentence in this paragraph alludes to your outlook of the topics at hand. Any answers are met with animosity and swept under the rug as faulty speculation and nothing more, believing any holes cannot be filled and nothing is explained because of the said holes. Now I?m just curious? Newtonian physics, even Relativity? were full of holes (still are) yet what did they give us? We have satellites in orbit, we have technology that otherwise could have never came to be. We have our arms stretched into space, we?ve been to the moon, and we?ve sent artifacts of our own creation beyond our solar system. All this done with Newtonian physics, when we know today that they are ?wrong?, erroneous and refuted. When it comes to a theory ? its not that it is correct, it?s what it can explain. Explanation is devoid of meaning and is nothing more than explanation. There isn?t an example of why or how, there is example of what is. Sadly you seem to believe that holes in a theory destroy all meaning found within it, this is why you are wrong.

Quote:
We've been taught evolution via dishonest methods... faked embryo drawings, inconclusive(at best) Miller experiment,

So, the chemical creation of amino acids, the precursor to all life on this planet, within the lab means nothing. The fact that the building blocks of replication can be formed out of chemical constituents, energy, and time doesn?t mean a damned thing? That?s an interesting way to look at how life can be formed. Then again you aren?t looking at how life can be formed; you?re looking at how you can refute claims of those trying to discover scientifically such processes. You know what a dishonest method is? Coming to a forum asking for ?information? and whenever given such information declaring it null and void with no explanation, reasoning, or theory outside of ? there is no physical evidence. Here?s a test for you ? prove gravity exists with physical proof.

Quote:
deceitful transitions, propaganda in illustrations,

You have a large problem in believing that every speculative idea about the holes found in the theory of evolution is intended to be factual dictum when I have never heard a researcher not follow such ideas with ?this is only in theory? or some other explanation. Otherwise the big orchestrated plot for evolution you?ve crafted, that creates non-knowing and ignorance through peer tested and argued assumptions, would be non-existent because any theory stated as fact without evidence that created such a theory or fact would be torn to shreds by the scientific community.

Quote:
theories based on assumptions,

I?ve already tackled this. All theory is based on assumption otherwise we?d have nothing to test because theories would solely be based on fact and otherwise unquestionable and if such was true scientific research would have no direction or means to prove anything.

Quote:
only taught these dishonest ways to support evolution... not told about things like the Cambrian explosion - weak fossil record, the weakness of the mutation/selection mechanism,

I cannot find a Darwinian who doesn?t point out such weaknesses, the holes found in the fossil record, and problems with mutations, but such holes are in no way more deceitful than the mind that is trying to interpret such topics. It?s just that if you think such problems are not of understanding but truthful examples of flaws in evolution, well you?re just ignorant of what genetics has taught us, what geology has shown us, and that in the past 40 years more has been done for evolution than anything following Darwin?s idea.

You know what my advice is? Read up on game theory. Read Dawkins? The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. There is actually little weakness in the areas you?re so sure there is.

Quote:
irreducible complexity, punctuated equilibrium to try to deal with the weak fossil record, etc.

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Believing that a weak fossil record is in anyway proof of the throes of evolutionary theory is an interesting outlook. I find the thought of a strong fossil record delusional? what are you to expect? You?re just stuck on needing current evolutionary evidence for the theory to be plausible, that?s like asking for a historical event to happen today to prove the existences of Revolutionary War.

Quote:
This theory seems to have the monopoly on free thought.

You seem to be the one wanting a monopoly of free thought. You can?t understand the ideas of theory and believe speculation denounces the theory on the spot. You have no trust in the scientific method or any subsequent experiment that says something you don?t want it to say.

Scientific Method:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

I?m also a little curious about how your outlook on the theory of evolution would work if implemented towards creationism or your creed itself. I know one thing for sure, they wouldn?t be standing, all while evolution with its holes and speculation will continue to rise up past Newtonian physics and Relativity as one of man?s greatest observations.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Defintion "C" of speculation is negative. Conjuring up theories to support another theory is not good reaoning.

I like your definition of theory though... if evolution was taught this way for the most part, it wouldn't be so bad. But it is pushed off as fact when there is much to question about it... even its foundational elements. And these questions are not taught along side of it.

It does matter if a theory is wrong. If a wrong theory can be helpful and progressive, how much more would the correct theory be helpful? If the wrong theory can take us this far... how much further could the correct theory take us?

We shouldn't sell ourselves short to continually conjure up speculatory theories inside the same old box to help support the walls. Eventually, we may have to step outside the box.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Concluding that 'god' is the answer isn't stepping outside of the box, it's building a smaller more confining box within the theory's box that's blind to everything outside it. Also when it comes to the box of our theory, it's being built on from all sides and angles, from within and from outside.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Knee jerk-anti - God reaction. You seem so eager to display your closed minded-ness.

My box includes the natural and the supernatural as possibilities. You cast aside the supernatural (God) b/c you don't understand it all. So whose box is smaller??? I'm not chalking things up to God for lack of knowledge, I'm looking at where the present knowledge is pointing.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
Knee jerk-anti - God reaction. You seem so eager to display your closed minded-ness.

My box includes the natural and the supernatural as possibilities. You cast aside the supernatural (God) b/c you don't understand it all. So whose box is smaller??? I'm not chalking things up to God for lack of knowledge, I'm looking at where the present knowledge is pointing.

Demonstrate to us how the supernatural can be measured, detected and falsified, nacker, and we'll be glad to consider it.

The problem is, the supernatural is by definition beyond nature, and as such if it does exists would be incoherent and unknowable to somebody looking for it here in the natural world.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
Knee jerk-anti - God reaction. You seem so eager to display your closed minded-ness.

My box includes the natural and the supernatural as possibilities. You cast aside the supernatural (God) b/c you don't understand it all. So whose box is smaller??? I'm not chalking things up to God for lack of knowledge, I'm looking at where the present knowledge is pointing.

Demonstrate to us how the supernatural can be measured, detected and falsified, nacker, and we'll be glad to consider it.

The problem is, the supernatural is by definition beyond nature, and as such if it does exists would be incoherent and unknowable to somebody looking for it here in the natural world.

Except that our logic has demonstrated the necessity for a beginner. We can know the supernatural beginner AT LEAST as the necessary, all powerful beginner of all things. After we accept God as that... we can dig for the truth deeper to learn as much as possible about him. Who knows what we'll find about his revelations of himself after we accept him as existant, and the all powerful beginner. Our best cosmological models and logic points to this.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

nacker wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
Knee jerk-anti - God reaction. You seem so eager to display your closed minded-ness.

My box includes the natural and the supernatural as possibilities. You cast aside the supernatural (God) b/c you don't understand it all. So whose box is smaller??? I'm not chalking things up to God for lack of knowledge, I'm looking at where the present knowledge is pointing.

Demonstrate to us how the supernatural can be measured, detected and falsified, nacker, and we'll be glad to consider it.

The problem is, the supernatural is by definition beyond nature, and as such if it does exists would be incoherent and unknowable to somebody looking for it here in the natural world.

Except that our logic has demonstrated the necessity for a beginner.

No, YOUR convoluted rationalizations have demonstrated that it is necessary to YOU.

Quote:
Our best cosmological models and logic points to this.

No, they don't. And we're already discussing this in another thread, please don't poinon the rest of the forum with it.

If you didn't want to actually answer my point, you could have simply said so.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

the point was answered. We can at least know and study the supernatural from our cosmological models which include singularity. We can study nature, and infer what it would take to be above nature. What must the supernatura beginner be like to be above the nature we study. What must He be like to create what He did. We learn of the supernatural by studying the "natural creation" of the supernatural Creator. I'll lay off the nothing/infinite argument on this thread since I am still waiting for a logical argument against it in another thread.

What you call the natural is really only the supernatural creation from a supernatural God. By studying the "natural" you are really studying the work of the supernatural. Don't write the hard questions off, but study them intently to learn more about our creator.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
human glands and fish gills rvolved from common ancestor

What you have just posted is no different from the naked assertions you continue to make in the other thread.

Now, I asked you nicely, nacker, please honor a very simple request.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.