Its a fucking disgrace that science books at Uconn now have to have a disclaimer sticker on it because of pompus brainwashing religious assfucks sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Keep religious garbage out of our class rooms!
[quote]rancho wrote:
What about the Challenge of Complexity to Evolution
One of many problems challenging today’s scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.
There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible.He assumed that this molecule had the opportunity to develop by natural chemical reactions on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1020) “hospitable” planets over a period of four billion years. What are the chances that a single DNA molecule formed? By his estimate, one in 10415!
Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.
According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent’s reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.
Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the “first mother” of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed “first father”? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?
In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning?pointing to an intelligent Planner.
Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
[/quote]
These are the same old intelligent design arguments that really don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
I’m sure you won’t even read these, but I’ll post these for the benefit of those with an open mind
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
It is interesting to note that ID advocates have not done anything to advance their arguments in the last few years , after their works were torn apart by other scientists. Oh, and BTW, your “many scholars” comes out to a total of four!! people who have written to advance the idea of irreducible complexity/intelligent design.
I am really wondering if creationists are even able to logically analyze ideas or think at all for that matter.
The thread starts off saying that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, yet several people have posted such evidence, and they just ignore it and say there is no evidence. It was also stated that “there is not one example of the formation of a new species (that fits the scientific definition of species)from another”. I posted a link that had several examples of observed instances of speciation, yet these guys still ignore, dismiss, and say that it never happened.
When asked what their specific version of creationism actually entails and theorizes, these guys are silent and offer up nothing. We are assuming it means biblical literalism, but you can’t really be sure-in one post Tuffloud states that the bible was written in the days before scientific knowledge, so some passages are metaphorical, yet he then goes on to say that the bible must be read as literally word-for-word correct. There is no logical consistency whatsoever. I guess it is easier to defend a flawed theory when you never actually explain what your theory is, thus avoiding scrutiny.
Finally, the creationist guys keep trying to equate belief in evolution with a religion, which it is clearly not. Evolution dos not attempt to explain what created the Universe. Evolution is a theory based upon, observation and evidence, and as new evidence has been discovered, evolutionary theory has changed as well. Calling belief in evolution a religion is just a sad attempt to make evolution appear as intellectually bankrupt as “creationist” theories.
[quote]
The fact is that evolution is accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and the only “controversy” about evolution among scientifically illiterate folks in school boards and other elected offices.[/quote]
Your words are telling like so many others Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.? Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, a student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ?correct? and the grade is lowered.? Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ?When man evolved from the lower animals,? or, ?Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.? Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed. This is what is referred to as the Weight of Authority When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution?s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.
An example typical of views that often intimidate nonprofessionals is the assertion you seem to share with Richard Dawkins: ?Darwin?s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist." But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ?serious modern biologists,? not only doubt evolution but do not believe it. They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of yourself and Dawkins are in error.
However, they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: ?Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalizations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs? In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states, ?Evolution is a fact,? and asserts: ?We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.? It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. However, it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally.
Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that ?debate rages about theories of evolution.? But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? NO. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?
In a foreword to John Reader?s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists ?are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.? The book acknowledges that evolution is ?a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.?
As an example, it notes: ?When preconception is . . . so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.? The author adds: ?Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators . . . [who] dismissed objective assessment in favor of the notions they wanted to believe.?
Therefore, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts. This unscientific attitude was noted and deplored by W. R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin?s The Origin of Species. Thompson stated, ?If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.? He said, ?The facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position.? Thompson also observed, ?A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. . . . The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.? H
e concluded: ?This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.?
Dickwad, you don’t know squat. You believe it. There is a difference. You thereby eliminate the option for DNA to come from somewhere else too.
You realize you are simply the pot calling the kettle black? Right?
If you would stop assuming you are right, realizing that instead you believe you are right, but could be wrong, this could be a discussion. There are many ways to interpret religion also, not just your way, in fact most religious people don’t seem to follow your interpretation.
Science doesn’t claim to have the answers. Science says, this theory seems to fit the evidence best. Creationism is an attempt to make the evidence fit a specific theory, but mainly through criticism of sciences inability to offer complete answers.
I repeat, science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. The fact it doesn’t have them, or may never have them, or may indeed discover them, doesn’t make it wrong or right.
You need to realize what science is, compared to religion, because science rejects belief in something “just because”. It looks for the best theory to fit the evidence that it finds.
When new evidence becomes available, it can either strengthen or weaken the prevailing theory…
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
this thread is going no where. People from neither camp are able to appreciate anything the other one has to say, and it’s totally not constructive. Therefore I am going to help this thread as I see fit. Honestly, I can’t beleive it wasn’t done sooner. This will probably please some of you, and it will probably piss off the others in both camps, but really…
TUBESTEAK BOOGIE!
who’s with me?[/quote]
I thought we figured that out on the first page. You can’t have a discussion if no one listens and thinks everyone else is the dumb one.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
What about frogs that can spontaneously change sex when one gender becomes overly dominant? Isn’t this a form of evolution based on environmental conditions?[/quote]
Please don’t start a thread about bisexual frogs.
I can’t take any more of this!
The debate rages on. Scientists are not sold on the issue of evolution as a fact. This is supported by the recent gathering of over a 100 scientists some of who are the most quoted scientists in their chosen field including molecular biology, genetics etc. These guys arent part of the religous community but are actual well respected scientists without an agenda to push. The old argument that this debate is only pushed by religous nuts is just plain ignorant. We all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. After looking at the evidence with an unbiased stance I personaly believe in creation and evolution on a macro-scale. I must be a religous nut! lol
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
You have already heard the evidence.
[/quote]
I’ll take that as a no.
It is obvious also; the failure of religion is also a reason for evolution?s acceptance or the failure of conventional religion in both what it teaches and what it does, as well as its failure to represent properly the Bible?s creation account. Informed persons are well aware of the religious record of hypocrisy, oppression and inquisitions. They have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. Therefore, they find no reason for considering the God whom those religions are supposed to represent.
In addition, absurd and unbiblical doctrines further this alienation. Such ideas as eternal torment?that God will roast people in a literal hellfire forever?are repugnant to reasoning persons. However, not only are reasoning persons repelled by such religious teachings and actions, but the evidence in the Bible is that God also is repelled. Indeed, the Bible frankly exposes the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders.
For example, it says of them: ?You also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.? (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the common people that their clergy were ?blind guides? who taught, not what comes from God, but contrary ?commands of men as doctrines.? (Matthew 15:9, 14) Similarly, the Bible condemns religionists who ?publicly declare they know God, but [who] disown him by their works.? (Titus 1:16) Therefore, despite their claims, religions that have promoted or condoned hypocrisy and bloodshed do not originate with God, nor do they represent him.
Instead, they are called ?false prophets,? and are compared to trees that produce ?worthless fruit.??Matthew 7:15-20; John 8:44; 13:35; 1 John 3:10-12. In addition, many religions have capitulated on the matter of evolution, thus providing no alternative for their people.
For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: ?General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.? At a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church agreed to this conclusion: ?We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute.?
With such religious endorsement, are uninformed church members likely to resist even when, in reality, ?masses of evidence? do not support evolution, but, instead, actually support creation? The vacuum that this causes is often filled by agnosticism and atheism. Abandoning belief in God, people accept evolution as the alternative.
Today, in a number of lands, atheism based on evolution is even the official state policy. Responsibility for much of this disbelief can be laid at the feet of this world?s religions. Too, some religious doctrines cause people to believe that the Bible teaches things contrary to scientific fact, so they reject the God of the Bible. For example, some erroneously claim the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days, and that it is only 6,000 years old. However, the Bible does not teach these things? NO!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
You have already heard the evidence.
I’ll take that as a no.
[/quote]
Several people have posted evidence. You just ignore it and repeat that “there is no evidence.”
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
The day that a man creates life out of nothing is the day that I will stop believing in God.
For all of humanism’s great wonders and “advanced science” they can’t not only create life, they don’t even scientifically know how the placebo effects works.
I’m not sure I see how the question of whether life can be produced ‘from scratch’ is all that important to the question of how well we understand life itself. There are lots of things we can’t do with Astronomy, for example, and yet we understand some of it fairly well.
Actually we have a pretty good idea about how the placebo effect operates. It only seemed mystifying because some insisted on prositing a false dichotomy between mind and body.
The fact that science’s understanding is incomplete says little about its validity. There is after all a process for finding out new knowledge using science.
Seen any new additions or corrections to the Bible lately?[/quote]
Dude, what does the bible have to do with this? Have I mentioned the bible even once in my posts? No! So let’s stick to the issues.
My point in talking about medical science is that what you call “science” and rely on as “fact” is actually just a group of organized assumptions that have not ever been proved. Again with the example of the placebo effect, the fact is that science does not KNOW how that biochemical, neurological, or endocrine process works. They only see the outcome and then have made a series of assumptions to explain it.
Now if they just left it at that and moved on, that would be fine. But Nooo! Just like evolution, they made a series of assumptions and then built processes around those assumptions as if they were proven facts. So they end up making a scientific model who’s foundation is not even scientific. So the whole thing is then bogus.
So using the placebo effect again as an example, science doesn’t understand the biochemical, neurological, or endocrine processes that produce the outcome, and yet, they use that as the basis to determine if a certain medication is effective or not. So essentially, they use a process that they don’t understand as a baseline to study certain medications. That is so unscientific I can’t even stand it. The result is that yearly thousands of people die from FDA approved, physician prescribed, pharmacists reviewed, and properly administered prescription medications. That is what occurs when you base science on a series of assumptions instead of proven facts.
So my friend, the point of all this is that evolutionary science is done in the very same manner. It starts with the unproven assumption of macroevolution, and using that as fact, has built a scientific model that is therefore also faulty. That is why the model continues to change, because the foundation of that model is based upon assumption.
What really gets me is, just like medical science, they just march along as if their assumptions have been proven and they just seem to ignore the fact that it is only an assumption.
So again, this leads us back to the fact that when you believe in evolution you are basically believing in the assumption that was made by Darwin (or others of the time) that has never been validated. So regardless of whether you agree with this or not, believing something is true or correct based on assumptions is FAITH!
So evolutionists have faith that their leaders, teachers, whatever are correct and creationists have faith that their leader God and teacher (the bible) is correct. Both are based on assumptions. Period!
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein
Besides the aforementioned TSB, this thread is a manifestation of the continued centuries long conflict between religion and science. This conflict goes back to the beginning of religion and man’s quest to discover the world around him.
Organized religions fear knowledge and education. Religous leadership belives it undermines the belief structures they are based on. It is easier for the ignorant to accept “Faith” as an explanation for the naturally occuring phenomenon around them than it is for someone who is educated. As a person learns about the world around them, they begin to ask questions, as they ask questions they begin to question the nature of god. The answers given by organized religions always end in “you must have faith”.
Science will always be an antogonist towards religion because of the percieved suppression of learning. I think you will find that scientists and serious theological scholars have very moderate views on the evolution/creation debate. They tend to leave the fighting about it up to the sheep.
The creation vs evolution debate will continue for as long as science and religion continue, with both sides engaged in a tug of war with no movement in either direction.
I say to all to read, learn, learn some more, learn about other religions, learn about the history of christianity, judaism, and islam. Participate in debate but don’t force your opinion on others. People will find god or leave god on their own. Have a budda-riffic day.
“Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out” - Feynman
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
TSB except for this one lovely passage below:
Yes we can. Back in 2003 (as I’ve posted previously) some guys took two weeks and used non-living chunks of DNA to formulate a living organism – a virus. Now all you have to do is say that a virus isn’t alive, and you get to be right about this (for once).
[/quote]
I wasn’t going to bring up the virus not alive debate, so let’s just move off that one.
The point is that they used DNA. Did they create the DNA? No! Sorry sport, creating something means there is NOTHING then there is something. It doesn’t mean taking pieces of wood and making a house and them saying; “look I created a house out of nothing!”
You mean pretend like you? What would that be like? Reading an internet site and then acting like a know-it-all? No, I think you have that aspect already covered. I’ll just stick to my biology, physiology, histology (etc) classes I had in graduate school.
I know you really want to believe science is not a faith based institution. But what would you call a group of people who follow another group of people based on their unproven assumptions?
If there is no facts, only assumptions at the core of the groups belief system, that is closer to religion than real science.
ps - Don’t worry, you are still my favorite “sport”.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Please do not try to pretend that you have a working knowledge of DNA recombination.
Please do not try to pretend that you have a working knowledge of where DNA came from in the first place.
[/quote]
Great point!
[quote]Black Thorn wrote:
Big Bang. But WTF was before?
And WTF was before WTF was before Big Bang? You know, everything must have a beginning… Can’t anyone see this all makes no sense?
[/quote]
No, evolutionists just ignore what doesn’t fit with their paradigm.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
What about frogs that can spontaneously change sex when one gender becomes overly dominant? Isn’t this a form of evolution based on environmental conditions?[/quote]
Not in the sense of the theory of evolution, because the ability to change sex itself is already part of the DNA. Enables some interesting life-style choices though.
[quote]juerocalvo wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
You have already heard the evidence.
I’ll take that as a no.
Several people have posted evidence. You just ignore it and repeat that “there is no evidence.”[/quote]
Sorry, but there is no natrual or fossil evidence of a missing link. Theories about these links don’t count as eveidence.
[quote]rancho wrote:
e concluded: ?This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.?
[/quote]
I just quoted your conclusion, because that analysis applies much better to “creation science” than evolutionary biology. Is creation science a doctrine that is unable to be defined scientifically? Yes. Can it be demonstrated with scientific rigor? No. Do they attempt to supress criticism? yes- they try and get the teaching ov evolution banned or get little stickers on textbooks to try and discredit evolutionary theory.
The fact is that evolution has been throughly analyzed, tested, and criticized for more than 100 years. The theory has survived this scrutiny and as now accepted as true by the scientific community. The reason that the validity of evolution as a whole is not a subject of debate anymore is that the evidence is so overwhelming. The scientific community has moved on to other things (this is not to say that specific parts of evolutionary biology are not discussed or debated-but the fact that evolution occurs is accepted as truth).
Astronomers once believed in the ptolemic model of ths solar system, and when the copernican model was introduced there was heated debate. However, the evidence showed the copernican model as correct, and scientists moved on. Are astronomers arrogant and wrong for accepting the copernican model and not continuing to discuss alternatives? Should schools be required to teach alternatives to the copernican model of the solar system?
If creationists are truly serious about scientific truth, they need to propose a coherent, testable theory of “creationism.” They need to test this theory and find evidence supporting this theory. This theory needs to be researched and refined as new evidence is accrued. This research in the “theory of creationism” needs to be discussed in peer reviewed scientific journals. The theory of evolution has survived this scrutiny, despite opposition from church groups based upon perceived religious implications of evolution. If the “theory of creationism” could survive this scrutiny, and be proven by evidence to be a better theory than evolution, science would certainly embrace it.
Of course the above will never happen, since the creationists haven’t even made it past the first step of proposing a coherent scientific theory.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Black Thorn wrote:
Big Bang. But WTF was before?
And WTF was before WTF was before Big Bang? You know, everything must have a beginning… Can’t anyone see this all makes no sense?
No, evolutionists just ignore what doesn’t fit with their paradigm. [/quote]
What does any of this have to do with with evolution? Evolution does not address the question of where the universe/matter/energy/physical laws came from. So whether or not there was a “first cause” is irrelevant to evolution.