Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

The most hilarious thing critics of evolution can say is "Im uneducated therefore the theory is flawed" in its innumerable forms.

This thread is a rotting pile of copy and pastes from creationist websites, and the people doing the spamming don't even have a basic understanding of the topic.

What the hell do you think science teachers are doing? They are force feeding other "scientists" work and calling it education. Your lack of honesty is astounding. So what someone shares information from another source. I do believe that is what we call learning and sharing information. Stop it with this "source" argument as it's just a means to ignore facts presented. You are just trying to ridicule and derail because your pet theory is crap.

I'm pretty sure you're faking your lack of comprehension here. There's been some good grounded information given to you but still your arrogance is astounding.

It's not even that hard to grasp! The molecules needed for nucleic acids to form and replicate were present before the first archaea or eubacteria appeared. Is that hard to accept that naturally occurring molecules could coalesce and replicate? DNA doesn't require the presence of a brain or a heart or even organelles to replicate. How the first simple cell membranes formed around nucleic acids might remain unanswered but in no way does the fact that it happened require a belief in an almighty. And saying that, I'll dance if i ever see the day they figure this out in a lab. It'll put a right spanner in your works but only for a while I fear. After all, nothing can evolve like a religion.

And another thing. This creator you are looking for is DNA. You are nothing but a machine, made by the DNA in the chromosomes you inherited from your folks (a chromosome too many by the sound of things),being driven by your genes in their quest to mingle and replicate.

reply to post by helldiver


Based on your logic, if you came across a computer you would say it evolved. How do you think DNA code got there?

I can easily say, you all who believe in evolution are ignoring the facts presented that challenge the theory and you are willfully playing dumb. I have seen nothing that PROVES evolution on the macro scale. There is zero proof of species change, despite the faithful and energetic albeit fundamental belief it is true to you all.

Not one person deals with the hoaxes, the CODE, the nano machines, the absolute lack of probability of this happening by chance. But, it sounds better than God did it, so you can go with Aliens did it.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Not one person deals with the hoaxes, the CODE, the nano machines, the absolute lack of probability of this happening by chance. But, it sounds better than God did it, so you can go with Aliens did it.

Show us your math. I'm not taking your word for it unless I know you've done the math, and that your math is reliable and foolproof.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by helldiver

 

Based on your logic, if you came across a computer you would say it evolved. How do you think DNA code got there?

I can easily say, you all who believe in evolution are ignoring the facts presented that challenge the theory and you are willfully playing dumb. I have seen nothing that PROVES evolution on the macro scale. There is zero proof of species change, despite the faithful and energetic albeit fundamental belief it is true to you all.

Not one person deals with the hoaxes, the CODE, the nano machines, the absolute lack of probability of this happening by chance. But, it sounds better than God did it, so you can go with Aliens did it.

No I wouldn't. I'd plug it in and use it because I'm not a brainwashed idiot and, most importantly, I can because I have evolved opposable thumbs from my furry ancestors.I 'd freak out and start praying if I came across a watch though.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

The most hilarious thing critics of evolution can say is "Im uneducated therefore the theory is flawed" in its innumerable forms.

This thread is a rotting pile of copy and pastes from creationist websites, and the people doing the spamming don't even have a basic understanding of the topic.

What the hell do you think science teachers are doing? They are force feeding other "scientists" work and calling it education. Your lack of honesty is astounding. So what someone shares information from another source. I do believe that is what we call learning and sharing information. Stop it with this "source" argument as it's just a means to ignore facts presented. You are just trying to ridicule and derail because your pet theory is crap.

I'm really sorry to see that you had such awful teachers. My science teachers taught me about curiosity and challenging notions. They also taught me how to challenge such notions via the scientific method. i.e. that curiosity and tenaciousness backed up by facts and repeatable experiments are what good science is about. That's not to say that there aren't scientists who are very dogmatic in their approach and feel the need to maintain status quo. That would be an insane statement as scientists are human being like everyone else and thus are fallible and able to be influenced. But making blanket statements about everyone who sees science as the most viable option for discovering the truth about the world and universe around us is equally insane. In reality most scientists would love to be the person who found a new earth shattering, world changing discovery. It's our holy grail so to speak.

reply to post by peter vlar


Exactly. If there were a truly viable way to prove that a higher power exists, what scientist wouldn't want their name on that discovery? They would be immortalized by association. Everyone would love and remember them. They would go down in history, and that's the greatest prize anyone can have, right?

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

- "Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003)"
- "An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). "

Okay I've gotten some sleep and smoked a bowl, I understand what you 're saying, thank you for your patience, chemistry is where I'm getting tripped up as I haven't been able to devote enough time to it, but is the protein chain just random when serine clusters together?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

No, I just grow weary of arguments made out of ignorance. I'm more than willing to accept that science hasn't found all the answers; I am, however, firmly opposed to giving up on science's ability to continue finding answers.

Do you think insulting people is proving your point? If you're so tired of the ignorance help somebody understand, how many times do you have to tell him he's ignorant before he will understand?

reply to post by 1nf1del

Do you think insulting people is proving your point? If you're so tired of the ignorance help somebody understand, how many times do you have to tell him he's ignorant before he will understand?

That last post was not an insult. It was an observation. What exactly are you trying to understand? And why are you trying to understand it on a conspiracy website? I'm sure there are much better places to find the information you're looking for.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

Do you think insulting people is proving your point? If you're so tired of the ignorance help somebody understand, how many times do you have to tell him he's ignorant before he will understand?

That last post was not an insult. It was an observation. What exactly are you trying to understand? And why are you trying to understand it on a conspiracy website? I'm sure there are much better places to find the information you're looking for.

You ever go to a science discussion forum or creationist forum where pretty much every member has a dogmatic view of said forum subject matter? I've found most of the free thinkers on conspiracy sites, what else does that tell you?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm an agnostic. I'm not arrogant enough to say 100% definitively that there's no "god" or any other form of higher power. What I do is follow the evidence, the evidence shows that evolution is a real and ongoing biological/environmental process. When some evidence of a higher power as described to me in church is presented then it will be time to reevaluate my current position. Whether or not a "god" played any hand or not is irrelevant to me in the long run but I take umbrage with people asking about evolution and switch to strawman routines by bringing up life's origins without grasping that abiogenesis and evolution are separated by a vast sea of interrelated disciplines but aren't studied by the same people that they are bashing. From everything I've studied I don't think there's a god let alone that he shaped our world into what it is today. But, I'm an open minded skeptic so I'm very open to any evidence aside from "it's logic and I don't understand the process so it must be god(or aliens). if I don't know something then that's exactly what it means, that I don't know and to me that becomes a puzzle that I relish in solving. I don't however see it as my opening to insert chaos into an equation.

reply to post by 1nf1del

You ever go to a science discussion forum or creationist forum where pretty much every member has a dogmatic view of said forum subject matter? I've found most of the free thinkers on conspiracy sites, what else does that tell you?

Ever try a social gathering that isn't online? Go to a college and join a club. Go to the library and read up on the latest research. Email a professor or a scientist and ask them to clarify stuff for you. If they can't, ask them to point you to someone who can.

For someone who wants to understand, you don't seem to be trying too hard.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

You ever go to a science discussion forum or creationist forum where pretty much every member has a dogmatic view of said forum subject matter? I've found most of the free thinkers on conspiracy sites, what else does that tell you?

Ever try a social gathering that isn't online? Go to a college and join a club. Go to the library and read up on the latest research. Email a professor or a scientist and ask them to clarify stuff for you. If they can't, ask them to point you to someone who can.

For someone who wants to understand, you don't seem to be trying too hard.

Spot on!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


Ever try a social gathering that isn't online? Go to a college and join a club. Go to the library and read up on the latest research. Email a professor or a scientist and ask them to clarify stuff for you. If they can't, ask them to point you to someone who can.

For someone who wants to understand, you don't seem to be trying too hard.

Because that would be like going to church to get an unbiased opinion on god. Why should I go somewhere outside my home on my free leisure time to just a dogmatic view because you are not comfortable with me here questing your beliefs, why is this such a problem for you?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Thank you for your post. The inconsistencies of modern science in the way certain events or findings are explained are disturbing to be sure. I do think that the "scientific community" certainly has a paradigm in which it works. All "valid" theory must fit into this paradigm; even when the paradigm is inconsistent or even flat out wrong. No one is allowed to question the paradigm. One could say that the tenets or doctrine of this paradigm from the scientific community, is almost one followed with religious fervor. that is to say, the modern science textbook must not be questioned and all responses in the classroom must fit within this holy book. deconstructing religion is a constant and ongoing endeavor to understanding god. deconstructing the very tenets of the science book are never done and frowned upon. our government fully funds natural museums which are a federally funded physical showcase of the science book. no doubt great to look at and a great amount of truths to be seen there. however, all within a paradigm that the new god of science has dictated. i find it amusing and sad that we have forsaken one god for another.

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


Ever try a social gathering that isn't online? Go to a college and join a club. Go to the library and read up on the latest research. Email a professor or a scientist and ask them to clarify stuff for you. If they can't, ask them to point you to someone who can.

For someone who wants to understand, you don't seem to be trying too hard.

Because that would be like going to church to get an unbiased opinion on god. Why should I go somewhere outside my home on my free leisure time to just a dogmatic view because you are not comfortable with me here questing your beliefs, why is this such a problem for you?

Except that science presents facts and churches present... nothing.

reply to post by 1nf1del


Here let me give you another parallel to the behavior here.

Person 1: "The religion of science cant explain why the sky is blue!"

Person 2: "Science isn't a religion and yes it has. Go educate yourself."

Person 1: "Scientists don't know how clouds form and this is why science is useless"

Person 2: "What the hell are you saying? There are a million websites you could go to for this information."

Person 1: "Oh? So you wont explain to me why science doesn't understand what color the sky is and where clouds come from? You expect me to go to a pro natural cloud formation website for propaganda from atheists?"

Person 2: "What does cloud formation have to do with atheism?"

Person 1: "Well scientists have never explained how the sun rises in the morning or why there are tides, so therefore its an intelligent designer that controls all those things."

Person 2: "Your an idiot."

Originally posted by Lawgiver

Thank you for your post. The inconsistencies of modern science in the way certain events or findings are explained are disturbing to be sure.

Could you give examples of said inconsistencies?

I do think that the "scientific community" certainly has a paradigm in which it works. All "valid" theory must fit into this paradigm; even when the paradigm is inconsistent or even flat out wrong. No one is allowed to question the paradigm. One could say that the tenets or doctrine of this paradigm from the scientific community, is almost one followed with religious fervor. that is to say, the modern science textbook must not be questioned and all responses in the classroom must fit within this holy book.

absolutely untrue on every level. you've clearly never been to a scientific conference. I can assure you that it's a bunch of people arguing the self importance of their own theories and why everyone else is wrong about their own. Questioning the paradigm is the core of what scientists do. Believe it or not, most scientists aren't in it for the money or grants. They would much prefer to break something open for the first time that sets all of science on its ass trying to figure out how they missed it.

deconstructing religion is a constant and ongoing endeavor to understanding god. deconstructing the very tenets of the science book are never done and frowned upon.

no disrespect but that's a fairly laughable premise that churches or parishioners are deconstructing religion at every opportunity to try to understand "god". Deconstructing the tenets of science , well that's done pretty much daily.

our government fully funds natural museums which are a federally funded physical showcase of the science book. no doubt great to look at and a great amount of truths to be seen there. however, all within a paradigm that the new god of science has dictated. i find it amusing and sad that we have forsaken one god for another.

OK, we got it. you think science is an unquestionable pseudo religion whereas Christianity will set us free. what was the point of this particular end rant? that the govt doesn't fund churches? I would hope that's not the insinuation because by not taxing them they are more or less subsidizing if not actually funding them. Besides, churches get to build their own museums. If the Smithsonian doesn't do it for you may I suggest heading to Kentucky and visiting the creation museum? It's a bastion of knowledge for the free thinker.

reply to post by JameSimon

Except that science presents facts and churches present... nothing.

Wiser to focus on the things that are everlasting than the things that will go to dust.
Only here for a brief moment within this season of 'time'.

reply to post by PrimeLight


Like what? What's everlasting?