PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Are there Withchdoctors in the
       Poll to see how many would agree there are.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a bit hard since it is no longer on their site. Will find an old copy for you.

I got the article from my university science library, I'm unaware of any elecronic version.

To make an organism demands the right substances in the right
proportions and in the right arrangement.  We do not think that
anything more is needed-but that is problem enough.  One has only to
contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet here we are, as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation (Wald G., "The Origin of
Life," in Bowen M.E. & Mazzeo J.A., eds, "Writing About Science,"
Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1979, pp.289-291).


This "quote" comes from an article in scientific american by Wald. If you want the citation I can give it to you. Looks like the writers of the paper/book cited him. This quote doesn't convey that when Wald says impossible he actually means apparently impossible. This is shown by the fact that right after this quote he goes on to show that some things considered statistically impossible happen as daily events and then goes on to discuss the biochemical aspects of life and how it relates to the origin of life. This paper  was written in 1954 and its age shows. The study of abiogenisis has advanced quite a bit since it was published.    


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:45 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Damn that's thorough!


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 7:47 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 07:31 AM on June 9, 2005 :
How many people here consider Doctors who don't believe that man decended from lower animals by "natural" means to be Witch doctors?
I have been told lately that evolutionist take this as a self-evident truth.



Doctors are people like everyone else. I sure their opinion about evolution is spread out just like the rest of the population. As witch doctors, I say no. A better question would be "How many people here consider geneticists who don't believe that man decended from lower animals by "natural" means to be sorcerers?" I say that those geneticists who believe in evolution are the sorcerers after all they should know better than anyone else that organisms can't change (evolve) into other organisms.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:27 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Raelian, they can. Organisms do change-- go to the Galapagos Islands-- there you would observe the countless species of a kind of finch that has speciated into over 30 species of new finch.

Even today, there are over 50 species of that kind of finch, and they keep branching out into new organisms. You can't just it doesn't happen when it does. It can be directly observed.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:37 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 11:37 AM on June 23, 2005 :
Raelian, they can. Organisms do change-- go to the Galapagos Islands-- there you would observe the countless species of a kind of finch that has speciated into over 30 species of new finch.

Even today, there are over 50 species of that kind of finch, and they keep branching out into new organisms. You can't just it doesn't happen when it does. It can be directly observed.



Wrong again. Those species of finches were always there. Scientists are only just discovering these species now. And if a particular species had children with a slightly different appearance, that is merely a genetic defect. If a man and a woman (with ten fingers and ten toes) had a child with eleven fingers and eleven toes, would you consider that child a new species of human (or primate or homosapien)? Or course not, it's just a genetic defect. Hopefully if that child grows up and has children, those children will have ten fingers and ten toes.

(Edited by Raelian1 6/23/2005 at 11:45 AM).


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:43 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong again. Those species of finches were always there.

No, you are wrong.  New species arose on the Galapagos islands in response to changing environmental pressures.  This is obvious.  Where is your proof that decades of data is incorrect.  Do some research.

Scientists are only just discovering these species now.

And these species all descended from a common ancestor and diversified due to different environmental pressures.  

And if a particular species had children with a slightly different appearance, that is merely a genetic defect.

You don't know much about genetics do you....By your definition, every living thing that has ever lived, save for the original ancestral population, has been plagued by 'genetic defects'.  Changes in genetic structure are not all defects.

If a man and a woman (with ten fingers and ten toes) had a child with eleven fingers and eleven toes, would you consider that child a new species of human (or primate or homosapien)?

Ah, I see, you have no idea what evolution is!
Single organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  Of course a child with 11 fingers and toes wouldn't be a new species!  Once again, you need to do a lot of research before you try to debate, you're making yourself look foolish.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:04 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doctors are people like everyone else. I sure their opinion about evolution is spread out just like the rest of the population. As witch doctors, I say no.

Agreed

A better question would be "How many people here consider geneticists who don't believe that man decended from lower animals by "natural" means to be sorcerers?" I say that those geneticists who believe in evolution are the sorcerers after all they should know better than anyone else that organisms can't change (evolve) into other organisms.

The thing is MOST geneticists accept evolution and when I say most I mean +97%, the majority of the remaining 3% are creationists/ devine I.D. advocates, the number that believe as you do would be vanishingly small.




And if a particular species had children with a slightly different appearance, that is merely a genetic defect. If a man and a woman (with ten fingers and ten toes) had a child with eleven fingers and eleven toes, would you consider that child a new species of human (or primate or homosapien)? Or course not, it's just a genetic defect.

Nope, the best definition for a species I am aware of is the ability to reproduce. If two individuals can breed and produce fertile young then they are the same species, if they can't they are different species. Mutations ar'nt genetic defects they are change in the allenes. Most mutations are neutral causing little change but some are beneficial and deteramental.Each human born has about 100 mutations Sometimes the positive/negative nature of a mutation is determined by the environment take for example the primate psudogene for vitamin C synthesis. In all higher primates the gene used in one of the steps in synthesising vit C has changed and can nolonger do it's previous job. This happend to the ancestors to all higher primates so it has been passed on to the species that diveged from this group, including humans. This initially could be seen as being harmful as vitamin C is an important compound and primates need it. But when you look at the evironment these primate ancestors existed in you would find that their diets would have been rich in vitamine c anyway  so the advantage of producing your on Vitamin C was nonexistant, while the metabolic cost of producing vitamin C was a disadvantage. So the non vit C producers took over as they had more energy available. 2 benefitial mutations to have occured recently in humans are 1) A mutation allowing adults to digest lactose in milk -  found in areas where cattle were domesticated 2) A mutation allowing us to breakdown alcohol faster - found in areas where brewing was used for steralizing water.  



(Edited by mabfynhad 6/23/2005 at 12:28 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:27 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2005 :
That's a bit hard since it is no longer on their site. Will find an old copy for you.


Peddler, did you find it yet?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:12 AM on June 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Piddler made this comment:
People who believe in particles to people are a minority, medical people who do are exceedingly rare.

As usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Here's a site that has recent statistics about doctors accepting evolution :
EvoDocs

You can read the whole thing but here's what I wanted everyone to see:

"The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%)."

So we see the majority of doctors accept evolution by a wide margin.  Maybe a creationist doctor can treat a patient as well as a doctor who accepts evolution, but if they don't accept the central concept of biology, you have to wonder what other important concepts they don't accept.  So yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable being examined by a creationist.  And of course they aren't able to do any cutting edge research since they don't accept evolution...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:29 AM on June 26, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 02:29 AM on June 26, 2005 :
Piddler made this comment:
People who believe in particles to people are a minority, medical people who do are exceedingly rare.

As usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Here's a site that has recent statistics about doctors accepting evolution :
EvoDocs

You can read the whole thing but here's what I wanted everyone to see:

"The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%)."

So we see the majority of doctors accept evolution by a wide margin.  Maybe a creationist doctor can treat a patient as well as a doctor who accepts evolution, but if they don't accept the central concept of biology, you have to wonder what other important concepts they don't accept.  So yeah, I wouldn't be comfortable being examined by a creationist.  And of course they aren't able to do any cutting edge research since they don't accept evolution...


Cutting edge research? I guess Lazers and MRI,s were not ?
There were over 180 "vestigial" organs at one time. There are now less than 10 that we don't know the purpose of. In science if you found absolute proof that more than 95% of your evidence contridicted your theory and there was not one single fact to support it the theory goes in the trash.
This is exactly what has happened in medicine . Evolution is not science it has set medicine back a long ,long way .
Without creationist doctors would still wash there hands after surgery.
Modern genetics is based on the work of Mendel. Modern medicine Pasteur. Pasteur is the Father of biology .
The law of biogenics was proposed by the creationist Rudolf Virchow.
Robert Hooke invented cell theory.
William Harvey (1578 - 1657), who discovered the circulation of the blood

I could go one but it is pointless. Despite the fact that modern science , including medicine , was born in mostly Christian Europe and it's pioneers were overwhelmingly people who believed they were created in the image of God you still make statements like creationist cannot do leading edge research.
That is absurd. It is like saying the sun is cold.




http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/uocm-sst062105.php



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 04:18 AM on June 28, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 04:18 AM on June 28, 2005 :

Modern genetics is based on the work of Mendel.


Curious double standard.  Mendel - Good Lemaître- Bad.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:45 AM on June 28, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cutting edge research? I guess Lazers and MRI,s were not ?

Cutting edge research in Biology
I find it strange that creationists view the world in such a black/white, right/wrong way. If your really good in one discipline does not make you an expert in all disciplines. Would you trust a Nobel prize physicist to make a medical diagnosis?

This even happens in the persons own field of experties. Take Albert Einstein, He won a Nobel prize in physics for discovering the photo-electric effect, which with other work developed into quantum theory. But the the thing is Einstein would not accept quantum theory (a theory he more or less gave birth to), he couldn't as it went against his philisophical view of the universe. In the end he has been proven wrong and quantum theory is our best model for behaviour of subatomic particles and for more or less the basis of our reality.


There were over 180 "vestigial" organs at one time. There are now less than 10 that we don't know the purpose of.

Vestigial doesn't always mean "without use", it means that its capacity to fulfill its origional use has reduced or/and its morphology has changed to fulfill a different use.

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/30/2005 at 03:51 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 03:44 AM on June 30, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 03:44 AM on June 30, 2005 :

I find it strange that creationists view the world in such a black/white, right/wrong way.


Replace "creationist" with "fundamentalist".

It's the same mode of thinking that brought us Sept. 11.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:29 AM on July 1, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cutting edge research? I guess Lazers and MRI,s were not ?

But Lasers and MRIs are applications of other theories, not the theory of evolution.

There were over 180 "vestigial" organs at one time. There are now less than 10 that we don't know the purpose of.

You don't know what vestigial organs and structures are.  Vestigial organs and structures are STILL excellent evidence that supports evolution.

In science if you found absolute proof that more than 95% of your evidence contridicted your theory and there was not one single fact to support it the theory goes in the trash.


That is correct and that is exactly what happened to creationism 200 years ago.

This is exactly what has happened in medicine . Evolution is not science it has set medicine back a long ,long way .

You keep repeating this lie but you can't back it up.  Evolution is the unifying concept of biology, it is integral to modern medicine.

I could go one but it is pointless. Despite the fact that modern science , including medicine , was born in mostly Christian Europe and it's pioneers were overwhelmingly people who believed they were created in the image of God you still make statements like creationist cannot do leading edge research.


If they don't accept evolution, they can't do any useful research in biology today, it's as simple as that.

And you still dance around the main point of my post.  You said:
"People who believe in particles to people are a minority, medical people who do are exceedingly rare."

And you were completely wrong.  Medical people who believe God magically "poofed" us into existance 6000 years ago are the minority.
The overwhelming majority of those in the medical proffession accept evolution.  Once again the facts disagree with your fairy tales.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:11 AM on July 8, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suggest everyone has a look at the latest new scientist as it deals with the the I.D/creationism Vs evolution debate. I found it to be very good but I'm biased of course.


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 06:36 AM on July 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this the one?

New Scientist-- Creationism article


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:30 AM on July 9, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yep, there is another article and editorial on the issue too. There is also an interesting article on the effects of humans in animal natural selection.


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:11 PM on July 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I give up.... what does "Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?" mean?  I know Especialy is a typo, but what does the rest of the sentence mean and who is he referring to?  Just curiosity on my part.  Thanks.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:23 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.