It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by riley
It doesn't. I thought it was an interesting tidbit as there is a strong probability that they co-exitsed with humans.
Originally posted by riley
What makes human beings ape like?
Originally posted by riley
All scientific evidence has supported evolution.. show me some evidence that refutes/contradicts it.
Originally posted by riley
Okay- I'm understanding your position a bit better now.. do you think cancer spontaneously appearing [as in mutating cells] shares ar similar mechanism with evolution mutations? Thats a very interesting take on it.. could you elaborate on that?
Originally posted by riley
I'd never thought of that before. Radiation etc. can cause fetuses to be severly malformed [russia with the cyclops babies, extra limbs etc] evolution may be affected by solar radiation [eg] of generations.. you're onto something there!
Originally posted by riley
I wonder if radiation causes abiogenesis? I've been trying desperately to avoid that thread [evolution is much easier to argue ].
Originally posted by saint4God
It is a harmful mutation, as I will say mutations are all harmful until shown otherwise.
Originally posted by saint4God
Still, there's that bio-diversity problem...
Originally posted by Zipdot
Evolution says otherwise. How are we going to argue this? I could say, look around you, examples of beneficial mutations are all around us and you would see them through your mutationally benefitted, evolved eyeball.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Here's another example of semantic arguement differences... I would argue that evolution itself "solves" the "problem" of biodiversity.
Originally posted by Zipdot
You are attempting to trace biodiversity right back to abiogenesis, but it doesn't work like that. There are competing abiogenetic theories, so just wait patiently for science to understand organic origins.
Originally posted by Zipdot
You can join the fray and try your own hand at conducting scientific abiogenetic experiments, if you'd like.
I would also say here that "survival of the fittest" is an economics term. Darwin's term is "natural selection," so in the beginning stages of life, I imagine a stage of teeming experimentation, wherein ancestors of modern nuclear material joined together and died left and right when conditions were unsuitable for existence. This, I would say, lead to things such as genetic recipes for building (adjective*) proteins, which caused (adjective*) traits to accompany the recipes, such as the armour of a cellular wall and power sources like mitochondria and more highly advanced and protected recipes such as DNA. *adjective - insert whatever positive adjective here - better, smarter, more, etc.
Zip
Originally posted by shaunybaby
this is just going round in circles. what evidence would be substancial enough for you 'saint4god' to say, yeah alright i guess evolution is a plausable theory.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
there are people that belong to your faith that accept evolution, yet you outright said you studied for years but never saw any evidence whatsoever. so why do people that share the same faith, the same god as you believe in evolution?
Originally posted by epitome
in relation to evolution,
high school science basics, cells: all living things are compsed of cells and all cells are produced from pre-existing cells
thus if you wind time backwards when time = 0
there is 0
hence, you cant make something out of nothing.
^^
Originally posted by saint4God
But surely he's a "rebel nutjob" right?
Originally posted by saint4God
"In a related development Monday, the Discovery Institute -- a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars -- filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to rule in favor of the school board. "
So now we have a think tank of scholars supporting him too. Interesting...
Originally posted by Zipdot
No, he's an "intelligent design" supporter. Are you really surprised to find that there are people in the world who support "intelligent design"? I'm not.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Heh. Just because the self-described "think tank" is nonpartisan does not mean that it is unbiased. As I will show you in a moment, this "think tank" was built from the ground up as an opponent of evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by Zipdot
According to his own biology department, he IS a "rebel nutjob."
Originally posted by Zipdot
So, again, I'm not surprised that you were able to come up with a professor and an organization that support "intelligent design."
Zip
Originally posted by saint4God
What I was surprised to find is that a news organization would report on it and 8 families are crying "lynch him!" in America these days. We're not as much of a free-thinking society as a lot of people think.
Originally posted by saint4God
That's fine. As long as they are scholars who present a scientific argument, I could care less what they're labeled.
Originally posted by saint4God
I can speak from first hand experience that one does not become a professor by being a "nutjob". That's what I was working on for a good number of years.
Originally posted by saint4God
Anywho, I can empathize with the man as my own biology department thought the same of me.
Originally posted by saint4God
...until people made religious accusations (most of which were entirely wrong).
Originally posted by saint4God
I ask questions, I was treated like an idiot.
Originally posted by saint4God
Hear the PHD in Biophysics out. If it's crap, throw it away. Same for Darwin, Mendel, Pascal, Newton, Aristotle, etc. If it works and makes sense, apply it. What place does emotion have in science?
Originally posted by saint4God
Looks like an interesting book, don't you think?
Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.
Originally posted by Zipdot
I look at it from a slightly different perspective, and that is to say that some people believe the court is being unduly influenced by a man who seeks to introduce the archaic notion of an all-powerful wizard into the school system, and this is disturbing to these people.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Put simply, intelligent design does not exercise the scientific method in its conclusions. "Irreducible complexity" is not a sufficient answer to a question, it is a buzzphrase to deliver the preconceived conclusion that "God did it" to those parties that require scientific-sounding explanations in their drafts of secular policy.
Originally posted by Zipdot
"Intelligent design" as a scientific-sounding explanation for the history o
f life on this planet is unacceptable,
and it is no surprise that America is the ONLY country that even SLIGHTLY considers "intelligent design" seriously.
Well, really, they are largely not scientists, as my earlier news quote pointed out, and the majority opinion says that they are not presenting a scientific argument, either.
Yes, well, the institutions have their reputations at risk, in this regard, and scholastic reputation translates into dollar values in more than one way.
I cannot imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design." It inherently demands one to reach out into the ether for answers to scientific questions.
It can sometimes be hard for religious people to gain the respect of irreligious people, and vice versa. This is due to a complete lack of empathy. To religious people, atheists are godless, and daily commit the biggest sin possible, denying God. To irreligious people, theists are often thought of as morons who believe in magic.
This situation is unlikely to change.
There will never be an "intelligent design" supporting book to cause actual consternation to the scientific community. This book's flaws have been poured over exhaustively here. Here is my favourite quote about this book:
I think that this sums up the sentiment of the scientific community on "intelligent design" itself pretty well.
Zip
Originally posted by saint4God
I haven't read his book, though conceptually "being built" does not necessitate any religion I know of.
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sure if someone wanders from the Aliens & UFO's section they could back me up on that one. What's wrong with being built?
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm glad you read "God did it" into the two words being put together as "Irreducible complexity" from a personal standpoint because at least there is that suggestion you've heard of God, but scientifically or etymologically speaking, I don't know where you're coming up with that.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Zipdot
"Intelligent design" as a scientific-sounding explanation for the history o
f life on this planet is unacceptable,
Why?
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure if you've noticed this or not, but for the last 200 years we've been the loudest country on the planet.
Originally posted by saint4God
The implication that Americans come up with "crazy religious" theories doesn't seem to hold the test of time and I can elaborate on that topic if you like.
Originally posted by saint4God
Opinion has historically died in science eventually. One of the great things about it.
Originally posted by saint4God
Yes, well, the institutions have their reputations at risk, in this regard, and scholastic reputation translates into dollar values in more than one way.
Bingo! Well said.
Originally posted by saint4God
I cannot imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design." It inherently demands one to reach out into the ether for answers to scientific questions.
What does atheism have to do with science?
Originally posted by saint4God
Talkorigins again? Does anyone use more than one source in their research?
Originally posted by saint4God
I think that this sums up the sentiment of the scientific community on "intelligent design" itself pretty well.
Darwin's Black box seems to have caused such stirrings according to Amazon.com. I don't know if I want to spend time with it or not. The study of evolution seems to be part of my past, not of my future so I still have the love for the science but a need to focus on the present.
Originally posted by Zipdot
The ideas' support for theology is only surpassed by its necessary ambiguity.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sure if someone wanders from the Aliens & UFO's section they could back me up on that one. What's wrong with being built?
From an emotional standpoint, nothing. From the standpoint of methodological study, logic itself is disregarded and natural processes,
Originally posted by Zipdot
which are the all-powerful governing system of the universe, are rendered powerless and obsolete - and why? You ask, "what's wrong with being built?" I ask, "what's wrong with developing?"
Originally posted by Zipdot
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm glad you read "God did it" into the two words being put together as "Irreducible complexity" from a personal standpoint because at least there is that suggestion you've heard of God, but scientifically or etymologically speaking, I don't know where you're coming up with that.
Ah, I was hoping you would concede the fact that "intelligent design" is creationist by its nature.
"Irriducible complexity" is a subjective phrase that appeals to emotions. It is flawed as a description of natural processes. It is semantic warpage.
Originally posted by Zipdot
It is the penultimate insufficient faux-science non-answer. You have heard the reasons for this before.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Without regard to America's public image, I'm not surprised that America stands alone in facing the "intelligent design" conspiracy based on American popular beliefs compared to other Western nations. We have a uniquely high percentage of Christian literalists. I can back this up later if you want me to, but off the top of my head, 97% of British Roman Catholic priests believe in evolution, and this number is in striking contrast to the percentage of American Roman Catholic priests that believe in evolution (this number I cannot recall and I'm not going to guess, but it's extremely low).
Originally posted by Zipdot
No comment, I was just referring to the overwhelming conservativism existant in our churches over here in comparison to other Western nations. This is evident in evangelical and traditional churches alike. Other western nations' church leadership tends to largely portray Genesis and other such stories in a more allegorical light than American church leaders. To great effect, I might add.
Originally posted by saint4God
If I understand your comment correctly, then I disagree with it. Scientific theories survive on popular support. Since theories cannot be proven, support is all theories have to remain prevelant.
Originally posted by saint4God
Well, you said that "intelligent design" doesn't demand that a supporter be religious and then I said that I could not imagine an atheist supporter of "intelligent design."
Originally posted by saint4God
I use tons of sources. Talkorigins is simply a great resource, though. Remember that Talkorigins is based on submissions, so it represents multiple points of view. Anyways, I specifically pointed you to that review because it's really good.
Originally posted by saint4God
From what I've read of the book, it presents a lot of information that sounds really good because it's all new to the reader, but after becoming educated on the issues, the sparklers kind of fizzle down and burn out.
Zip
Originally posted by saint4God
We don't understand the 'natural' process as well as we thought we did. I can see why this would have traditional scientists up-in-arms, but we know what happens when we hold onto traditions instead of the reality of the information being presented.
Originally posted by saint4God
Though instead of answering questions directly and candidly, many teachers/professors are glossing over the gaps with imaginary answers that explain nothing.
Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know where you're getting that either. A Christian can see both evolution and ID as tools of God. The tool doesn't matter to a Christian when it comes to salvation. Did God use a spatula or a spoon to scoop up the matter? Who cares? (speaking from a theological standpoint). Science cares, not Christianity.
Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps the reason it 'flaws' a description of nature is because our description of the natural process is flawed.
Originally posted by saint4God
Who are we to wag the finger at nature saying, "You're not behaving like
we thought!" A silly approach really.
Originally posted by saint4God
Nature doesn't have to comply to our laws, we have to understand the laws of nature.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Zipdot
It is the penultimate insufficient faux-science non-answer. You have heard the reasons for this before.
This should be a vacuuming-up opportunity for science. We've always wanted to break things up and figure out how it was put together. Our "it grew together that way" models aren't working. Time to take another angle and see if it works. If it doesn't work, stop and try again. That's called 'testing'. I'd hate to see science give that up because of their relig...er... current beliefs.
Originally posted by saint4God
*shrug* I don't know what this has to do with science.
Originally posted by saint4God
Why not? Unless and atheist cannot picture anything superior to himself/herself, but if you accept evolution, then you already believe that. Where's the conflict?
Originally posted by saint4God
Fair enough. I find too much opinion there for my liking.
Originally posted by Zipdot
Anyways, know the enemy, right?
Zip