The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: game over man
Good thread OP! Read about half way through and decided to post (will finish reading the entire thread). A quick google search on the evolution of DNA is complicated and the basic theory is that RNA evolved naturally from Earth and then RNA evolved into DNA.

That's the theory but,

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical. "The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky."

So it's still in the same boat.

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It is a pretty unanswered question, though I saw a fun article in my news feed today

It comes back to the concept many people miss however. Life and how it began is not part of the theory of evolution. This is because evolution does not deal with the how of beginings, but the how of changes.

I am not saying you did not know this, rather this is an important factor that bears repeating ad nausea.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: Elementalist

Or option 3, that people stop being retarded


Why don't people know that evolution has been shown to the most viable theory through quantitative and qualitative data time after time after time after time after time after time etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. It's been so solidified using actual observations of the world around us accompanied by an incredibly vast volume of data that any other theories have an almost impossibly steep mountain to climb to prove otherwise. There is absolutely zero evidence to support intelligent design and we are still having these conversations. I'm all for having a debate about theories of how we came to be, but these theories actually have to be competing. Give me at least some quantitative data to support opposing theories. Give me anything.

Calling half the world retarded shows your own colors.

I don't need to give you anything.

Who are you again?

Grow up.

a reply to: Elementalist

Half the world? That is a bit much hyperbole But I do agree name calling adds nothing. Though I get the feeling from that reply as well. It is frustrating

a reply to: neoholographic

in yours and some others
opinion

that's ok
but I'm not so sure

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Elementalist

Half the world? That is a bit much hyperbole

But I do agree name calling adds nothing. Though I get the feeling from that reply as well. It is frustrating

Half the world is religious, native, tribal, non-scientific in perception/reception of their reality.

Evolution, the theory, has become a belief structure for the other half who do not believe in creationism.

Look at every thread about this exact debate, the evolutionists behave like religious people in terms of defensive, Ad hominem, even offensive which is all evident in a few pages in this thread.

Saying there is no proof, proves exactly the above statement. There is proof for both sides, and faults on both sides (that in general is not directed at you personally).

The point being, it's (evo-theory) has become people's "glue" for mental security in terms of their existence. The same fore the creation types.

Evolution IS a theory. It's not a fact. There is still discoveries to be made.

On the contrary; religions are theories and beliefs based on oral and written tradition past throughout time from living beings going back thousands of years.

So yea half the world. There are more religious followers, tribal and native people's who perceive a creator then those who believe in a theory as far as I know.

In the west, maybe not so much. But the world over..

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: burgerbuddy

It is a pretty unanswered question, though I saw a fun article in my news feed today

It comes back to the concept many people miss however. Life and how it began is not part of the theory of evolution. This is because evolution does not deal with the how of beginings, but the how of changes.

I am not saying you did not know this, rather this is an important factor that bears repeating ad nausea.

Oh, it's the first thing shouted.

But how can it not be in the chain of events?

It's like going on and on about how this little thing on the wall makes the light go on and off and how pretty it can be by changing the color of the bulb but ignoring where the electricity comes from and saying it doesn't count.

I'm still trying to find a good analogy for separating the beginning of life with evolution. sorry.

And wouldn't the answer to abiogenesis add to the evolution theory?

I mean it will just make the puzzle a bit clearer if there was an unbroken line from stardust to Sophia Loren, wouldn't it?

Of course there would still be discussions on how even that came about.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

But how can it not be in the chain of events?

It IS in the "chain of events". That is self-evident. However it is also self-evident that a chain is made up of many links.

There is a connection between the two different links "before life exists" and "after life exists". There is no question of that. Abiogenesis studies the "before life exists" link, and Evolution studies the "after life exists" link.

Of course they are connected. They are connected and they are also separate entities that can be studied in isolation - just like the links of a chain.

a reply to: Elementalist

Evolution IS a theory. It's not a fact.

You have that backwards.

Evolution is a fact. It happens. Evolution is 'change over time'. Everything changes over time that is a self-evident, trivial truth.

Of course we are specifically talking about the domain of biology here, that is life. ALL LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME. That is biological evolution that we are talking about. Biological evolution is a simple, self-evident, trivial, truth. In other words: FACT. The phenomenon of Evolution was known to be FACT before Darwin proposed his hypothesis (i.e. submitted a possible explanation) for the mechanism of how it worked, and his hypothesis was just one of several competing hypothesis.

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is the Scientific Explanation of why and how biological evolution actually happens. The FACT of life changing over time is a given; the THEORY attempts to explain how that occurs. The THEORY can be updated over time as new data needs to be fit into the picture and better explanations are found; the current THEORY is as far beyond Darwin as General Relativity is beyond Newton (or perhaps even Copernicus. There is nothing 'sacred' about Darwin's explanation or any part of any THEORY. That does NOT deny the FACT of the phenomenon that the THEORY seeks to explain.

When used in this context, the word 'theory' means 'scientific theory' which is radically different to the layman's use of the word. The layman's use of the word 'theory' more closely corresponds to the 'scientific hypothesis'. For an hypothesis to be promoted to a theory (or part of a larger theory) it has to pass many rigorous checks, it isn't just guess work. The Theory of Evolution (proper name: Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or MES) has successfully passed more checks than any other scientific theory in history, including General Relativity.

There is still discoveries to be made.

Indeed. That is why 'we' keep on keeping on doing science.

a reply to: speedhead93

You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet.

Nope, never noticed it, they seem to come in all shapes and sizes. Are the eyes of this man "close together"? With "big furry hands"? I can't quite see his feet but I suspect they're not furry. He does talk a bit funny with some errors in the usage of certain words and phrases, but that's because he isn't english and the teaching of (young earth) creationism can interfere with rational thought and the correct expression of facts:



Next to the mistakes he makes he has a bit of a peculiar way to describe the problem of hydrolysis regarding most abiogenesis by natural causation scenarios/stories (A.K.A. "the chemical evolution theory of life" quoting Haldane & Oparin, or just "chemical evolution" quoting Dean Kenyon). He's still correct though about most of what he says (and if you fix the little slip-ups in your own mind), except for anything he says that may be motivated by his young earth philosophy. Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, also doesn't seem to have his eyes close together or big furry hands (also a YEC according to wiki):



This one's eyes also seem quite far apart, but the video is a bit widened, so maybe he's cheating:



This one's head is way to wide for his eyes to be close together, still making more sense than Bill Hicks though:



And this one just has a great bow tie, btw, all these videos adress some of the commentary and arguments made in this thread so far, they are all relevant and make a lot more sense than Bill Hicks, if you can look past the young earth creationism motivated philosophies and statements:

originally posted by: Elementalist

Death is waiting for all, what happens next, if anything, people should care more about then how their body came to be...

What if "what happens next" can be derived from gaining knowledge about "how their body came to be" (as in the origin of all life, not just procreation)? If there is a creator of life on earth, wouldn't he also know best as to "what happens next"? See my thread "One myth leads to another" for some details regarding that subject. All of this is important and actually your (possible everlasting) life depends on it; which you might realize especially when you start considering the real source of eugenics, social darwinism, the holocaust, (religious) terrorism, (religious) wars and other horrible things all connected to the way people think, influenced by propaganda and their religious beliefs and teachers, their "philosophical belief systems", semi-quoting Shapiro who won the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship of the University of Edinburgh:


“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

― James A. Shapiro



It's very hard to tell who or what to trust in this world that is overflowed with propagandistic messages, with the ones screaming the loudest accusing others of brainwashing and such while they are supposedly "awake" to this brainwashing (but their actions and words show otherwise) and that they're helping people to wake up to all the deception in this world. The bible describes these people as 'being wise in their own eyes'. It's time for your real wake-up call:



Talking about the subject of waking up to deceptions or misleading views of reality (sort of like daydreaming when using the analogy of being awake vs being asleep):

Is Evolution a Fact? "Awake!"—2006

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

Regarding the sentence with the term "entirely new", watch some people capitalize on the ambiguity of language and play on the word "species" and "kind" and pretend "speciation" is proving what it says there a century of research hasn't been able to prove (which the full article has a lot more details about including how they use the word "species" in that article for clarity, but I'm sure those who want to debate about "species" and so-called "new species", as in the examples of finches with different beak sizes used in the article, will try to capitalize on the ambiguity of language anyway, just saying ahead of time that the response to those types of comments is already in the article).

Isaiah 5:18-20

Woe to those who drag along their guilt with ropes of deception

And their sin with wagon cords;

19 Those who say: “Let Him speed up his work;

Let it come quickly that we may see it.

Let the purpose* of the Holy One of Israel take place [*: Or “decision; counsel.”]

That we may know it!”

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

That would also be describing what I said in comments before about the pot calling the kettle black (which also happens regarding what I said about "brainwashing" above). And the bolded part, does that sound familiar to you?

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: neoholographic

Umm... No.

Keep ID in Sunday school where is belongs.

That is seriously the most close minded (can't be right, looks ridiculous) thing I have heard in a while. Why does ID have to be exclusive to Christianity, or any religion for that matter? You aren't even willing to consider that something other than what you believe is even possible?

Watch the documentary with "Expelled..." in the title and you''ll see why people keep saying things like that, they are victims of propaganda (also see the comment where I linked to an article about propaganda, might be the same comment). It was sharp of you to spot that. That's some good discerning going on there.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Did you even read up on de novo genes or did you just copy and paste something with no context as it pertains to the thread?

The more puzzling thing would be why he would bold something about chirality (the 2nd comment) that actually provides evidence against the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (or gradual evolutionary development of the homochirality of DNA bases after that, notice the article conveniently just saying "chirality" when referring to this homochirality). Perhaps because he thinks the evolutionary philosophers who got their philosophies published used the word and assumption "evolution" in that sentence and that somehow is supposed to convince someone who doesn't treat so-called peer reviewed articles as holy scripture that 'evolution did it''? Nature caused the homochirality of the amino acids and nucleotide bases used in all of life?

The writers, publishers, reviewers and editors of that article nicely sneak in their evolutionary philosophy that there are "early steps of evolution" without giving any justification that evolution is somehow responsible or even involved and completely ignoring that the very subject they are talking about shows that there weren't "early steps of evolution". Quoting phantom:

Keywords: chromatin, topology, higher-order structures, topoisomerase, crossover, DNA packaging

Awww, no "chirality"? None of the keywords above are used in what was bolded, so I'll pick "chirality" for the sentence that was bolded, but it would have been more accurate perhaps to use homochirality. It seems the man in this video makes the same slip-up (btw, what counts for amino acids in proteins also counts for nucleotide bases in DNA, in case he forgets to mention that as well. Only amino acids are left-handed and nucleotide bases are right-handed, as found in living organisms that is):



When I was checking something I noticed the first article in google called:

Life's 'Left-Handed' Amino Acids Still A Puzzle - Forbes

Haven't read it yet but it's so typical again to pretend it's a puzzle (appealing and triggering people's thoughts regarding the 'Great We Don't Know Yet but nature did it anyway, it evolved anyway' god of the agnostic gaps, continuing to pretend the evidence is pointing in the direction of 'nature did it' or 'it evolved'), just a little gap in knowledge that needs to be filled in, denying it's evidence against their belief that it evolved or that nature did it. And then pretending that those for who it's not a puzzle but clear evidence that nature did not do it but that intelligence was somehow involved in selecting only right-handed nucleotide bases and left-handed amino acids to build and engineer the biomolecular machinery we now are observing in all living organisms, including prokaryotic unicellular bacteria, that they're the ones using a God of the Gaps for drawing that logical correct conclusion from the evidence and facts available using inductive reasoning.

Very very interesting indeed... i love this subject but somehow never really research it.... i am a computer engineer ..got my first pc back in late seventies and have always compared nature and evolution to intelligent design and quantum mechanics etc

I am not sure where we all come from and how this intelligent design was implemented but it sure seems to be "real"

Great post

originally posted by: rnaa
Evolution is 'change over time'.

What a convenient vague definition capitalizing on the ambiguity of language with the rest of your comment. I should have shared this video as well when I was sharing videos made by young earth creationists to show that they don't have big furry hands (then again, the ending after 4:12 isn't that brilliant, and there are more phrasing mistakes earlier on that might trigger a wrong way of thinking in those who are very biased against this type of information, but then again, that would probably happen anyway even if he does use the right words and phrases everything correctly):

a reply to: neoholographic

Everyone who doesn't believe in Evolutionary theory should stop going to the doctor immediately. Most modern medicines and medical techniques are developed assuming the theory is true.

Read through every post in this thread, and I can say, no one answered your questions.

I have come to realize that the teaching of evolution today is much like the Catholic Church of the dark ages. You must not question it, and everything it says is dogma, and if you disagree you must die.

Humans haven't changed have they? People who believe in the ridiculous and absurd idea that the human genome evoked from nothing to be able to replicate itself, and error check itself, backwards and forwards, with a blueprint in digital record, in the most condensed form possible, writing a book that would fill the Grand Canon, it all came from chance.

So many people, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, people who believe in evolution, all of them, when you start using logic with them that their beliefs and fairy tales are false and wrong, all of them will fight to the end (not all of them, the majority of them).

It leads me to the conclusion, that it doesn't really matter the belief system. It matters the person. A humble person is able to see beyond what he has been programmed to believe. But arrogant fools can't see past their noses. It doesn't matter what religion, or non-religion they are.

The most arrogant haughty ones, will deny all logic, and call you a fool for believing in logic, all the while not being able to refute or answer one single logical question you give them.

And they will die like rabid dogs before they open their eyes, or have open minds.

The scientific community of today is exactly the same as the Catholic Church of the dark ages, as far as dogma and heretics are concerned. There is no doubt about it.

And the "Catholic" evolutionists, will deny your logic, even though they cannot refute it.

And they don't even know that they act the same way so many religionists before them have.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

There was no logic in this post whatsoever.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I imagine you are one of the zealots of either Catholicism or evolution. Of course it wouldn't make sense to you. Because common sense would blow your mind.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Says the guy who is just dismissing a whole concept without actually attempting to understand the evidence that supports and identifies it as true. Like I said earlier. Better stop going to the doctors. Clearly none of that medicine should work.

But then again it is easy to just say that evolution isn't true without taking the time to understand the aspects of modern life that you rely on that require evolution to be true in order for them to work. Go on and continue to lie to yourself and stick your head in the sand. Unlike the Bible, evolution doesn't care if you don't believe in it. It's going to happen regardless.