On the contrary, I know that many (if not all) of us who learned and accept evolution as factually true want for people to understand it. See what it all consists of, and all. ... As hard as this may be for you to believe this, I don't want you to accept evolution simply because some authority figure says so. You make up your own mind on that. But when the growing evidence is leaning more and more towards evolution, and you have the biblical literate people go ape-s**t over that, and for no better reason than that it is challenging what their scriptures say, then they really have no solid standing to accuse evolutionary biologists of blindly accepting anything. Ie., it would clearly be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible? Does everything have to be science vs. the Bible? (Let's just assume everything in the Bible is false, heck, Jesus rose from the dead, how's that possible?)
I just know the more biochemistry and genetic courses I take, the more unlikely it appears. You know that UV rays damage our DNA. Now, those proteins that slide up and down the DNA, find damage, use light rays as a magnifying glass to fix it, HOW THE F__ does that appear by chance? One protein. Come on, ONE PROTEIN. Evolving. A few genetic defects here or there and POOF!! Show me. (Humans alone are made of what? 40,000 different types of proteins.)
Yeah, I took the courses under the Harvard PhDs too, I heard their lame-brain arguments too. Always the "Well maybe it coulda happened like this. . ." Lawyers. The lot of them. So they think of a way it could have possibly happened and that's science???? The drug companies don't have it that easy.
You keep saying "growing evidence." Where? Seems like there are more obstacles everyday for the evolutionists to answer. (Of course you mentioned biologists, we could go into the old "In science, there is only Physics" discussion on that, but of course, you only seem to be programed ot point-and-laugh)
And what (terrible I presume?) social implications would that be? :o
As already stated, scientific support for racism and the like. If evolution be true, it's only a matter of time before humans begin branching into new species. (A long time of course)
It's also nice to know that the hamburger I just at was a distant relative. If we can subdue animals, our evoluitionary relatives, why not people?
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible? Does everything have to be science vs. the Bible?
Because Creationists keep bringing it up as the final authority, and the authority that they just won't challenge. They are often open minded and apply independent scrutiny towards a lot of things scientific, ... until they come to a scientific claim that crosses the Bible. Then they back off from that, and remain obedient to the Scriptural account in Genesis, no matter what the evidence might be to the contrary.
As already stated, scientific support for racism and the like. If evolution be true, it's only a matter of time before humans begin branching into new species.
And I've heard just as lame arguments like that as a desperate attempt to rendering racism as a necessary result of evolution. I've heard John Schoenheit's tape on evolution making that outrageous claim (and his pi** poor attempt to 'document' that), and from a few other sources. Now you want to stir up that wasted canard. ... Give your reputation a break. Get a better argument! <_<
Because Creationists keep bringing it up as the final authority, and the authority that they just won't challenge. They are often open minded and apply independent scrutiny towards a lot of things scientific, ... until they come to a scientific claim that crosses the Bible. Then they back off from that, and remain obedient to the Scriptural account in Genesis, no matter what the evidence might be to the contrary.
Oh, I thought you disagreed with me. Yes, there are a lot of weird preachers out there with of-the-wall-stuff. (lcm's interpretation of the big bang and the ice age being one-and-the-same comes to mind).
And I've heard just as lame arguments like that as a desperate attempt to rendering racism as a necessary result of evolution. I've heard John Schoenheit's tape on evolution making that outrageous claim (and his pi** poor attempt to 'document' that), and from a few other sources. Now you want to stir up that wasted canard. ... Give your reputation a break. Get a better argument! <_<
Isn't there fairly strong evidence that the continents were once connected and have "spread" apart over thousands of years?
I'm really just watching and reading here.....
Dooj,
You would be correct that there is strong evidence that the continents once formed one land mass and drifted apart due to the geological phenomenon known as plate tectonics. Just look how neatly the continents fit together. However, as with most things geological the continents drifted apart over the course of millions of years rather than thousands. T-Bones article notes that the large connected land mass (Pangaea) existed some 200 million years ago. The article linked below indicates that during the Jurassic Period (130 million years ago) Pangaea began to break up. The Genesis flood is recorded to have happened some scant 5 thousand years ago. The continents were pretty much where there are today at that time.
The plates of the earth's crust move at differing speeds. Yet, all of them it seems can be measured in centimeters per year according to the table linked below.
The plates of the earth's crust move at differing speeds. Yet, all of them it seems can be measured in centimeters per year according to the table linked below.
The swiftest plate moves a little more than 8.5cm per year.
... which means that over the past 6,000 years, means that it would have moved over an intercontinental, multi-time zone distance of ... only 510 meters. ... Ie., only a little over half a kilometer. ... Ie., only about 1600 feet. ... Ie., only about 5 1/3 football fields end-to-end. ... Ie., only .........
The scientific soundness of Creationism comes through again! .....
... which means that over the past 6,000 years, means that it would have moved over an intercontinental, multi-time zone distance of ... only 510 meters. ... Ie., only a little over half a kilometer. ... Ie., only about 1600 feet. ... Ie., only about 5 1/3 football fields end-to-end. ... Ie., only .........
The scientific soundness of Creationism comes through again! .....
The plates of the earth's crust move at differing speeds. Yet, all of them it seems can be measured in centimeters per year according to the table linked below.
Garth - I'm not staking a claim in this argument. I think there is most like some truth in both arguments - but I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to argue the matter.
I merely stated something I remembered - you guys can duke it out.
Plate tectonics is a relatively new theory in the field of geology.
. . .
However, due to my lack of knowledge in this topic and the conflicting numbers of scientists, my values may be off. I suppose there's no agreeable data because there is probably no real efficient method of measuring all the tectonic plates on earth.
. . .
Also, the earth is constantly changing and so there is no exact number to reflect the velocities of the plate tectonics.
What? Did you miss the link provided by Oenophile?
Ie., http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml, which provides a thorough explanation, as well as footnotes to resources.And as a counterargument, you provide, ....... what? :unsure:
So because it was science sites _addressed to children_ is why you dismiss it out of hand, ... while you respond with "Obviously something over your head.", that 'something' being your own opinion of the matter, non-scientifically backed, of course.
It must be a real kick in the teeth when it takes a couple of childrens sites, backed by theories reached through valid and proven science, 'kicks to the curb' your counterarguments, backed by nothing more than a religious doctrine and your dedication to such. ... Life is so unfair sometimes, isn't it?
P.S., oh, and your usage of this: "However, due to my lack of knowledge in this topic and the conflicting numbers of scientists, my values may be off. I suppose there's no agreeable data because there is probably no real efficient method of measuring all the tectonic plates on earth. . . . Also, the earth is constantly changing and so there is no exact number to reflect the velocities of the plate tectonics." doesn't even begin to address the scientific impossibility of the earth going through such massive tectonic changes in such a short amount of time. Suffice it to say that the movement of the plates is extremely slow on an inch(es) per year basis, and no evidence of any major and rapid movement of said plates/continents in such a short time has been found. ... At all.
What this does mean is valid and proven science isn't something that comes up as The Answer all at once. Ie., its an ongoing process, where more and more information, evidence, and proof is being found, tested, and applied on a continuous basis. This illustrates one of the mistakes Creationists make when dismissing science. Ie., there are 'gaps' in scientific theories, sometimes big ones, ... at first. And creationists _presume_ that scientific theories are nothing more than flawed guesswork, and leave it at that.
But as more research is done, those 'gaps' get filled in with valid information, ... and proof. Such is the theory of evolution. Back in Darwin's day, the theory was quite primitive as regards the amount of data Darwin had, ... as compared with now.
Oh, and using the argument that plate tectonics as being a new science to dismiss or downplay it does nothing to disprove the facts that are already known due to this 'new science'. ... Again, some Creationists see the threat to their Genesis doctrine due to tectonics, and they go ape-s**t. ... Again, it boils down to the ongoing point of defending the Genesis creation account, at all costs. And I oughtta know, as I used to be one of them and I am well familiar with the mindset. ... Ie., Been there, done that, ... burnt the t-shirt.
Frankly, those kid sites show a helluva lot better understanding of the scientific process than that looney bin up in Kentucky.
So because it was science sites _addressed to children_ is why you dismiss it out of hand, ... while you respond with "Obviously something over your head.", that 'something' being your own opinion of the matter, non-scientifically backed, of course.
It must be a real kick in the teeth when it takes a couple of childrens sites, backed by theories reached through valid and proven science, 'kicks to the curb' your counterarguments, backed by nothing more than a religious doctrine and your dedication to such. ... Life is so unfair sometimes, isn't it?
Perhaps you could point out the answer to my question then? Is the assumption that the plates have always moved at the same velocity? No dramatic shifts?
backed by nothing more than a religious doctrine and your dedication to such.
HOLD ON!!!
Who are you talking to? Quit bringing religion into this.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
Who are you talking to? Quit bringing religion into this.
So let me get this straight. You don't believe in the Creationist account? ... Then why defend it as tho' you do? :unsure:
And as far as 'bringing religion into this', its the Creationists who bring religion into this, by their dogged refusal to allow their Genesis creation account to be scrutinized/challenged by evolution or anything else. They were like that back in Darwin's day, and they are still like that today.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
23
8
55
Popular Days
Jun 18
28
Jun 14
26
Jun 20
23
Jun 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
likeaneagle 17 posts
GarthP2000 23 posts
T-Bone 8 posts
Bolshevik 55 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2007
28 posts
Jun 14 2007
26 posts
Jun 20 2007
23 posts
Jun 19 2007
20 posts
Bolshevik
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible? Does everything have to be science vs. the Bible? (Let's just assume everything in the Bible is false, heck, Jesus rose from the dead, how's that possible?)
I just know the more biochemistry and genetic courses I take, the more unlikely it appears. You know that UV rays damage our DNA. Now, those proteins that slide up and down the DNA, find damage, use light rays as a magnifying glass to fix it, HOW THE F__ does that appear by chance? One protein. Come on, ONE PROTEIN. Evolving. A few genetic defects here or there and POOF!! Show me. (Humans alone are made of what? 40,000 different types of proteins.)
Yeah, I took the courses under the Harvard PhDs too, I heard their lame-brain arguments too. Always the "Well maybe it coulda happened like this. . ." Lawyers. The lot of them. So they think of a way it could have possibly happened and that's science???? The drug companies don't have it that easy.
You keep saying "growing evidence." Where? Seems like there are more obstacles everyday for the evolutionists to answer. (Of course you mentioned biologists, we could go into the old "In science, there is only Physics" discussion on that, but of course, you only seem to be programed ot point-and-laugh)
As already stated, scientific support for racism and the like. If evolution be true, it's only a matter of time before humans begin branching into new species. (A long time of course)
It's also nice to know that the hamburger I just at was a distant relative. If we can subdue animals, our evoluitionary relatives, why not people?
I'm sure you've thought of more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And I've heard just as lame arguments like that as a desperate attempt to rendering racism as a necessary result of evolution. I've heard John Schoenheit's tape on evolution making that outrageous claim (and his pi** poor attempt to 'document' that), and from a few other sources. Now you want to stir up that wasted canard. ... Give your reputation a break. Get a better argument! <_<
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oh, I thought you disagreed with me. Yes, there are a lot of weird preachers out there with of-the-wall-stuff. (lcm's interpretation of the big bang and the ice age being one-and-the-same comes to mind).
Don't know J.S.
Nietchze, Hitler, Social-Darwinism I've heard about.
Have heard a Bible-beater on TV say evolution can't be true because an orangatan can't make a phone call. (WTF????
)
So you're saying Creationist can be quite stubborn and arrogant (and downright silly). I agree.
I'm saying most people don't know enough science to even argue. Disproving a Creationist argument doesn't prove evolution.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I also want mention that dude who thinks pterodactyls are still around. They live in Papa New Guinea and their poop glows in the dark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm a Russian pufferfish on a ex-cult memeber site?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Dooj,
You would be correct that there is strong evidence that the continents once formed one land mass and drifted apart due to the geological phenomenon known as plate tectonics. Just look how neatly the continents fit together. However, as with most things geological the continents drifted apart over the course of millions of years rather than thousands. T-Bones article notes that the large connected land mass (Pangaea) existed some 200 million years ago. The article linked below indicates that during the Jurassic Period (130 million years ago) Pangaea began to break up. The Genesis flood is recorded to have happened some scant 5 thousand years ago. The continents were pretty much where there are today at that time.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...Contdrift.shtml
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
The Days of Peleg-Strongs Exhausted Concordance
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/ww...mpare/peleg.htm
An explanation of the land dividing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Am I the only one not surprised this 'museum' is located in KY country?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
The plates of the earth's crust move at differing speeds. Yet, all of them it seems can be measured in centimeters per year according to the table linked below.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml
The swiftest plate moves a little more than 8.5cm per year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Sushi- and Ohio..
Bolshevik-did you take AV.Class between 98-2000?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... which means that over the past 6,000 years, means that it would have moved over an intercontinental, multi-time zone distance of ... only 510 meters. ... Ie., only a little over half a kilometer. ... Ie., only about 1600 feet. ... Ie., only about 5 1/3 football fields end-to-end. ... Ie., only .........
The scientific soundness of Creationism comes through again! .....
..... Yah! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I took the post-lcm Advanced Class (
)
Did he talk about some of this stuff? (I mentioned some of what he said in the foundational class earlier)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well you could look for stretch marks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Which makes me wonder – if anyone ever clocked how fast this continental drifter is...
…Hey, Waysider what’s your top speed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Garth - I'm not staking a claim in this argument. I think there is most like some truth in both arguments - but I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to argue the matter.
I merely stated something I remembered - you guys can duke it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And you're an authority of "scientific soundness"? Is there an assumption that the plates have always moved at the same constant speed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What? Did you miss the link provided by Oenophile?
Ie., http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml, which provides a thorough explanation, as well as footnotes to resources.
And as a counterargument, you provide, ....... what? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well from that same website:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You mean like this one?
http://www.cybersleuth-kids.com/sleuth/Sci...logy/index1.htm
and "little explorers"?
http://www.littleexplorers.com/subjects/as...ontinents.shtml
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Obviously something over your head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ahh, not so fast.
So because it was science sites _addressed to children_ is why you dismiss it out of hand, ... while you respond with "Obviously something over your head.", that 'something' being your own opinion of the matter, non-scientifically backed, of course.
It must be a real kick in the teeth when it takes a couple of childrens sites, backed by theories reached through valid and proven science, 'kicks to the curb' your counterarguments, backed by nothing more than a religious doctrine and your dedication to such. ... Life is so unfair sometimes, isn't it?
P.S., oh, and your usage of this: "However, due to my lack of knowledge in this topic and the conflicting numbers of scientists, my values may be off. I suppose there's no agreeable data because there is probably no real efficient method of measuring all the tectonic plates on earth. . . . Also, the earth is constantly changing and so there is no exact number to reflect the velocities of the plate tectonics." doesn't even begin to address the scientific impossibility of the earth going through such massive tectonic changes in such a short amount of time. Suffice it to say that the movement of the plates is extremely slow on an inch(es) per year basis, and no evidence of any major and rapid movement of said plates/continents in such a short time has been found. ... At all.
What this does mean is valid and proven science isn't something that comes up as The Answer all at once. Ie., its an ongoing process, where more and more information, evidence, and proof is being found, tested, and applied on a continuous basis. This illustrates one of the mistakes Creationists make when dismissing science. Ie., there are 'gaps' in scientific theories, sometimes big ones, ... at first. And creationists _presume_ that scientific theories are nothing more than flawed guesswork, and leave it at that.
But as more research is done, those 'gaps' get filled in with valid information, ... and proof. Such is the theory of evolution. Back in Darwin's day, the theory was quite primitive as regards the amount of data Darwin had, ... as compared with now.
Oh, and using the argument that plate tectonics as being a new science to dismiss or downplay it does nothing to disprove the facts that are already known due to this 'new science'. ... Again, some Creationists see the threat to their Genesis doctrine due to tectonics, and they go ape-s**t. ... Again, it boils down to the ongoing point of defending the Genesis creation account, at all costs. And I oughtta know, as I used to be one of them and I am well familiar with the mindset. ... Ie., Been there, done that, ... burnt the t-shirt.
Frankly, those kid sites show a helluva lot better understanding of the scientific process than that looney bin up in Kentucky.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Perhaps you could point out the answer to my question then? Is the assumption that the plates have always moved at the same velocity? No dramatic shifts?
HOLD ON!!!
Who are you talking to? Quit bringing religion into this.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...r=7&catID=2
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So let me get this straight. You don't believe in the Creationist account? ... Then why defend it as tho' you do? :unsure:
And as far as 'bringing religion into this', its the Creationists who bring religion into this, by their dogged refusal to allow their Genesis creation account to be scrutinized/challenged by evolution or anything else. They were like that back in Darwin's day, and they are still like that today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.