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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 11 12 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:58 PM on April 13, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 3:34 PM on April 12, 2009 :

Yeap, i don't eat anything forbidden in the Bible. Except maybe for the ocasional spider while i'm sleeping, according to some statistics.



Statistics? I was pretty certain you did not believe in them. Now you do?


He doesn't believe the cartoon version of probability portrayed by creationists, what does that have to do with statistics?


-------
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: 9:17 PM on April 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus_maximus
wisp
Yeap, i don't eat anything forbidden in the Bible. Except maybe for the ocasional spider while i'm sleeping, according to some statistics.
Statistics? I was pretty certain you did not believe in them.
Yes, we know your certainties. And your statistical rate of hits.
Now you do?
I always have.

You also thought that i was an atheist and that i didn't like thermodynamics.

What are the statistical chances that you're right about creation?

What were the odds of finding a predicted animal like the Tiktaalik in the predicted layer?

Meh, it's not like i'd expect you'd know how to do the math, even if it was very simple.

It can be oversimplified to:
1 divided by number of species alive or extinct, times the number of existing layers, divided by the number of layers that would have fit the prediction (be considered as a hit) divided by the number of species found in the same layer.

I don't have those numbers, but i'll make an estimate (a conservative one) off the top of my head:
(5kk) · (5k) / 10 / 100 = 25kk

So 1/25kk

We just keep winning the jackpot.

How many layers can we pinpoint? I guess the answer is not as simple as the question. But there are certainly thousands.


Edit: gluteus, that was one in twenty five millions (1/25'000'000).


(Edited by wisp 4/14/2009 at 07:17 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:14 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, wisp, I did think you were an atheist. I guess I was wrong. There are problems with this whereas the age old question "Can God and Evolution Co-exist?" With evolution, do you need God? You probably are not a Christian would be my guess, unless u already stated that in this long thread.
But you do not believe that the universe was finely tuned in an unimaginable way and therin lies the quandary.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:56 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:56 PM on April 14, 2009 :
But you do not believe that the universe was finely tuned in an unimaginable way and therin lies the quandary.


Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean others cannot.



-------
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: 10:05 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nopes, i'm not a christian.

I do marvel at the Universe. Yes, it has lots of awesome features that allow for the processes we know.
One of these processes is Evolution.

What if the Universe is finely tuned to produce Evolution?

You could say that God did it, if you want.

Edit:
Don't you marvel at our amazing guesses?
Like the Tiktaalik.
God works in mysterious ways, right?


(Edited by wisp 4/14/2009 at 11:52 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:50 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are problems with this whereas the age old question "Can God and Evolution Co-exist?" With evolution, do you need God?

The Catholic church has no problem accepting God and evolution.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:09 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wondering why this was ignored...

Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?


Is there any non-biblical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Lifespans have been INCREASING overall in recorded history, not decreasing.


You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.


So, "meaning" is dependant upon belief systems?

"Meaning" is not an inherent characterstic?


Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.


Talk about loaded words...

Did you know that beneficial mutations are also considered part of the mutational load?


You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.


Unfortunately, you've swallowed the historical revisionism of creatinist propaganda ministers.

Even as Ohno coined the term "junk DNA", he did not claim that this DNA has no function, and before and after the phrase was coined, evolutionists were speculating about AND discovering functions in junk DNA - decades beforwe the creationist/IDists "predicted" it.

You people are not only decades behind the times, you are also actively engaging in historical revisionism to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is, there ARE portions of the genome that have no direct physiological function.  Just saying this because we don't know what it does yet?  No, saying this because you can remove it and suffer no consequences, the very definition of no function, I should think.


Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .


I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!


Blind obedience and an overestimation of your intellectual powers is what makes for a good creationist.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:29 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.




Personally, I'm finding Derwood's comments very refreshing, and to the point.  He shows that he has an excellent grasp and understanding of both sides of this debate.  In fact, I would say that Derwood has both Lester and Timbrx up against the wall.

I really enjoy watching professional dancers perform.  Their fluid and graceful movement is a joy to see.  In a similar manner, I've really enjoyed Derwood's replies - they make sense, they hit the mark, they have integrity, he uses good illustrations and examples.  It's like watching a professional dancer in action.

Thanks Derwood.


(Edited by orion 4/15/2009 at 3:45 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:02 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Wondering why this was ignored...
Lester10
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?
Because it's boring.
We all know his basis is his faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.
And this "historical fact" is harder to "disprove" (we know they like this term) than, say, vegan lions, or vegan taenia.

I really prefer to ignore that.

We can show him a lot of evidence that he won't accept against Adam's 900 years. But it requires several pieces of evidence put together. He can barely follow one.

I got to shut him up about parasites and carnivores. He doesn't even mention them now. He can't.

But he could keep talking about Adam's 900 years, mentioning evidence for the Bible's historical accuracy, and other boring stuff.

I hope i made myself clear.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:03 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:09 AM on April 15, 2009 :
There are problems with this whereas the age old question "Can God and Evolution Co-exist?" With evolution, do you need God?

The Catholic church has no problem accepting God and evolution.  


Does your evolution account for the soul?

"Catholics and the church believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person."





 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:15 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:15 PM on April 15, 2009 :
Does your evolution account for the soul?


No.



-------
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: 8:35 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does your evolution account for the
soul?


Why does it have to?  But back to the point, the Catholic church (christians) have no problem accepting evolution and believing in God.  This was in response to your question,
"Can God and Evolution Co-exist?"
As the Catholic church demonstrates, Yes.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:59 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahahahaha!

That reminds me of a cool "song" by Tim Minchin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

It's just audio with text.

Very hilarious.

"Catholics and the church believe that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person."
Should we bring up the question 'what does "soul" mean?' Or do we better leave it?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:30 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:15 PM on April 15, 2009 :
Does your evolution account for the soul?


Can you demonstrate the existence of the soul directly or indirectly?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:36 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:30 PM on April 15, 2009 :
[color=teal]Hahahahaha!

That reminds me of a cool "song" by Tim Minchin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

It's just audio with text.

Very hilarious.





Just watched that, brilliant! his other vids are top too!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 6:16 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah!
I subtitled some of his vids to Spanish so my friends could appreciate it.

I like "If i didn't have you" and his explanation of Donnie Darko. xD



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:19 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 08:36 AM on April 16, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:15 PM on April 15, 2009 :
Does your evolution account for the soul?


Can you demonstrate the existence of the soul directly or indirectly?


You soul is your spiritual being, consciousness, personality and the existence of freewill. Do you doubt the existence of the soul?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:00 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did you answer his question?


-------
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: 7:11 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's just a matter of words.

Consciousness is a matter of scientific study. Free will is not and, therefore, the soul (as you have defined it) is not either.

Evolution is not supposed to account for your words, but biological entities.

It's funny the way people invent words, define them, and then ask science to account for their definitions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:12 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 7:12 PM on April 19, 2009 :

Consciousness is a matter of scientific study. Free will is not and, therefore, the soul (as you have defined it) is not either.



Was has science concluded about consciousness?



 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:02 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing. No conclusion. There's a lot of ongoing debate and investigation, but we're far from understanding consciousness.

So?

What, will you say "Then the Bible is true" or something?

Our understanding on consciousness is growing.

You can't invoke a God of the gaps. Because when the gaps shrink, so does your god.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:08 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what we don't know or understand gives you a hard on?

What about what we do know? Or what we can predict?

You made no mention of the Tiktaalik.

How do you think we guessed where to find what?
My most conservative numbers resulted in a one in twenty five millions chance of guessing.

Why do we just keep winning the jackpot?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:23 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was has science concluded about consciousness?

That it's a process carried out by the human brain, not a thing (a soul).  When certain parts of the brain are damaged the conciousness of that brain is changed or destroyed,  are you claiming the soul is also changed or destroyed?

(Edited by Demon38 4/19/2009 at 10:52 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps it's the brain's ability to synchronize or to be in tune with the soul.

That would be the best possible explanation (to my understanding), which would render the "soul" pretty much unexplained and unnecessary.

By the way, gluteus, science has explained why we believe in God and the soul.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:26 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:00 PM on April 19, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 08:36 AM on April 16, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:15 PM on April 15, 2009 :
Does your evolution account for the soul?


Can you demonstrate the existence of the soul directly or indirectly?


You soul is your spiritual being, consciousness, personality and the existence of freewill. Do you doubt the existence of the soul?




Yes.

None of what you wrote constitutes a real definiiton of a soul, much less a demonstration of it's existence.  Flowery emotional language does not a demonstration make.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:18 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To me, the soul is all what gluteus said, plus the joy of watching sunsets.

In my definition, if you don't enjoy sunsets, you're a soulless piece of matter.

That's my definition.
What has science said about it? Eh? Eh???



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:27 PM on April 20, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:27 PM on April 20, 2009 :
To me, the soul is all what gluteus said, plus the joy of watching sunsets.

In my definition, if you don't enjoy sunsets, you're a soulless piece of matter.

That's my definition.
What has science said about it? Eh? Eh???




Is science the answer to everything? You believe science can transcend all things knowable and unknowable?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:28 PM on April 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, i don't think so. I can even conceive that there are some questions that no intelligence in this Universe will ever be able to answer. Perhaps there are even some things that no intelligence in this Universe will ever be able to question!

But when it comes to determine the age of the Earth, that it revolves around the sun, that the light travels at 300'000 km/sec, that the whale used to have four legs, yeah. That's pretty simple for science nowadays.

The prediction that the Tiktaalik should have existed in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians (and even more, that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago) took some thinking. And it was only possible assuming that Evolution is true.

Are you against knowledge?
You sure seem to be.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:05 PM on April 21, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:28 PM on April 21, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 3:27 PM on April 20, 2009 :
To me, the soul is all what gluteus said, plus the joy of watching sunsets.

In my definition, if you don't enjoy sunsets, you're a soulless piece of matter.

That's my definition.
What has science said about it? Eh? Eh???




Is science the answer to everything? You believe science can transcend all things knowable and unknowable?



No of course not, but you'd have to know how science operates to realize this.. Science focusses on natural phenomenon and entities only, you see the tree outside your house (possibly), it is natural, so science can deal with it.

Thats also why science says nothing on god whatsoever. It is not equipped to deal with the supernatural, just the natural.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:48 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:28 PM on April 21, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 3:27 PM on April 20, 2009 :
To me, the soul is all what gluteus said, plus the joy of watching sunsets.

In my definition, if you don't enjoy sunsets, you're a soulless piece of matter.

That's my definition.
What has science said about it? Eh? Eh???




Is science the answer to everything? You believe science can transcend all things knowable and unknowable?



No.
And you clearly do not.

So one has to wonder why it is that folks like you demand that science give you answers to such questions when you do not believe that science can answer them.

Disingenuous much?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:42 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:42 AM on April 23, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:28 PM on April 21, 2009 :
Quote from wisp at 3:27 PM on April 20, 2009 :
To me, the soul is all what gluteus said, plus the joy of watching sunsets.

In my definition, if you don't enjoy sunsets, you're a soulless piece of matter.

That's my definition.
What has science said about it? Eh? Eh???




Is science the answer to everything? You believe science can transcend all things knowable and unknowable?



No.
And you clearly do not.

So one has to wonder why it is that folks like you demand that science give you answers to such questions when you do not believe that science can answer them.

Disingenuous much?



Well thats their point I think, science should answer things that they feel their religion can but science can't.. And science sucks because it can't answer them :P

It's kind off like asking a priest about nuclear physics and calling him a bad priest if he doesn't know about nuclear physics.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:17 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just can't believe that chance creation created such complex beings especially mammals, just like if I saw a computer lying in the street, I would reasonably conclude that it had an intelligent designer.  Things like these don't assemble themselves randomly. And a big question then becomes, where did the matter
come from in the first place from which life is based.  If every action has a cause, they what was the 'cause' of matter in the first place?  If
matter has an age, then when was the matter 'born' and how?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:44 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sigh, i posted having kinda lost my temper... So i'm editing...

I just can't believe that chance creation created such complex beings especially mammals,
Dear gluteus, show us someone who believes such a ridiculous thing, or please, stop using it, because it constitutes a strawman. You (should?) know how civilized debaters hate those things. Thanks.

I've also noticed that, no matter how many times we tell you that NOBODY says or believes that, when you're left with nothing to say, you come back to it.

That's either a red herring (if you're going to use them, you might as well stop posting), or you sincerely don't read our replies, or they don't stick in your brain (if that's the case you might as well stop posting).

You brought up the subject of numbers and odds. You don't even understand your own numbers. I presented clear numbers that showed you that predicting the Tiktaalik by mere luck had a chance of (at MOST) 1/25.000.000.
You stood quiet about the subject.

So is it licit for you to keep posting?

As for where did matter come from, let's say a supernatural entity snapped its supernatural fingers and matter appeared.

Even if we do assume such a thing, it doesn't present any problems for Evolution.

That being the case, why do you use it? Are you done attacking Evolution?


(Edited by wisp 4/23/2009 at 5:46 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:58 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:44 PM on April 23, 2009 :
I just can't believe that chance creation created such complex beings especially mammals, just like if I saw a computer lying in the street, I would reasonably conclude that it had an intelligent designer.  Things like these don't assemble themselves randomly. And a big question then becomes, where did the matter
come from in the first place from which life is based.  If every action has a cause, they what was the 'cause' of matter in the first place?  If
matter has an age, then when was the matter 'born' and how?




Here's the problem, you think evolution is just "chance".. But it's not, so basically what we have is that your idea of evolution is wrong and thats why it seems so impossible to you. In reality, its not just chance.. Sure, there's a chance element in there, but its only a small part.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:31 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are so many points posted here that I would be sitting in front of the computer to try to address them all. I do miss things as do others. What again about the "Tiktaalik"?  Let me focus on this point that I don't think got acknowledged to calm me. How is it that life started from mere unorganized chemicals and why cannot biologist do it in the modern laboratory?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:39 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Why would you think that chemicals can't organize themselves?


-------
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: 7:47 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am referring to life ,,something that contains genetic information, can reproduce offspring that resemble itself, grows and develops, controls cellular organization and conditions including metabolism and homeostasis, and responds to its environment. In a laboratory.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:51 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if it were produced in a laboratory, you would only say that intelligence was needed.

Do you know what Avogadro's number is?


-------
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: 7:55 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I studied that in HS. why?
But how is it that life started from mere unorganized chemicals and why cannot biologist do it in the modern laboratory?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:34 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How is it that life started from mere unorganized chemicals and why cannot biologist do it in the modern laboratory?

Explain what "unorganized chemicals" are because chemicals self organize all the time.

And organic chemists can't duplicate it YET...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:43 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How big is it?  


-------
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: 8:43 PM on April 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are so many points posted here that I would be sitting in front of the computer to try to address them all.
Edit:Ok, "coward liar" gets edited by the admin.

Let's see...

Gluteus, you're not showing the courage to address our rebuttals. Besides you're not saying the truth and you know it.

I do miss things as do others.
Gluteus, you're not showing the courage to address our rebuttals. Besides you're not saying the truth and you know it.
What again about the "Tiktaalik"?
1/25.000.000. And you have NOTHING to say. You might as well stop posting.
Let me focus on this point that I don't think got acknowledged to calm me.
You have NOTHING to say.
You got nothing. Everything (not that it was much) was addressed. And you don't read or don't learn.
How is it that life started from mere unorganized chemicals
It didn't.
There. Addressed.
and why cannot biologist do it in the modern laboratory?
Replicate life? Because it took millions of years in an Earth-sized scenario.
If you can't understand that you might as well stop posting.

I am referring to life ,,something that contains genetic information, can reproduce offspring that resemble itself, grows and develops, controls cellular organization and conditions including metabolism and homeostasis, and responds to its environment. In a laboratory.
Again (and again and again and again) you don't understand ANYTHING about the theory you're trying to discredit.

You might as well stop posting.


(Edited by admin 4/24/2009 at 06:43 AM).

(Edited by wisp 4/24/2009 at 09:09 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:03 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:34 PM on April 23, 2009 :
I studied that in HS. why?
But how is it that life started from mere unorganized chemicals and why cannot biologist do it in the modern laboratory?


Well the first that you need to do is get it out of your head that it's from "unorganized chemicals".. Thats really not the correct kind of term, in chemistry, a lof of reactions happen natually without any kind of organisation whatsoever, the snow flake you saw is a prime example.

A missconception that creationists often point to, is that somehow, it has to be "alive" at first and somehow it has to look a bit like current life, creationists are often seen talking about a certain amount of complexity that can't arise through some calculation.

But imagine this, I'm not going to tell you exactly what kind of organism could have been the start, but the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.


(Edited by Zucadragon 4/24/2009 at 01:12 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 01:08 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.


So it has to be alive then, since only life can reproduce. It can't be too simple or it would have been oxidized before it got far. It needed to have maybe a cell membrane for protection of whatever it did have and it had to have a fair degree of organization in order to be able to reproduce. And all this had to be there before mutations and natural selection could be of any help whatsoever. BIG order!!!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:35 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:35 AM on April 24, 2009 :
the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.


So it has to be alive then, since only life can reproduce. It can't be too simple or it would have been oxidized before it got far. It needed to have maybe a cell membrane for protection of whatever it did have and it had to have a fair degree of organization in order to be able to reproduce. And all this had to be there before mutations and natural selection could be of any help whatsoever. BIG order!!!



The wrong assumptions give you the wrong numbers, something doesn't have to be alive to reproduce, machines can for instance, reproduce themselves with the right equipment.


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

For instance is a piece of research showing that a simple mechanism can reproduce without it being a cell, having all the parts that living cells require.

it's of course very simply, but it's just to show that your original assumption is incorrect, it doesn't have to be alive to reproduce.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 06:25 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Zucadragon
the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.
So it has to be alive then, since only life can reproduce.
Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Are viruses alive? Are prions alive? Is fire alive? Crystals? Autocatalytic reactions? Memes?

You boycott yourself with your statements. If only life can reproduce, well, then they have made life in the lab.

It can't be too simple or it would have been oxidized before it got far.
Says who? You?

It needed to have maybe a cell membrane for protection of whatever it did have and it had to have a fair degree of organization in order to be able to reproduce.
Glycoaldehyde doesn't need any of that. And, in the presence of formaldehyde, and with a source of energy like gamma rays, it makes more glycoaldehyde.

And all this had to be there before mutations and natural selection could be of any help whatsoever.
Says the guy who claims that glycoaldehyde is alive.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:05 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 24, 2009 :
the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.


So it has to be alive then, since only life can reproduce.


Yes, you can see that the line between life and non-life begins to get very fuzzy at this level.

It can't be too simple or it would have been oxidized before it got far. It needed to have maybe a cell membrane for protection of whatever it did have and it had to have a fair degree of organization in order to be able to reproduce.


Cell wall are pretty easy to come up with abiotically.



I saw a paper once about the pores in some sort of clay, with the idea that the lipid bilayers that form spontaneously would cap off the end, protecting the chemicals that concentrate in them, while also forming substrates when chemical activity can take place.


-------
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: 09:07 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:05 AM on April 24, 2009 :
Lester10
Zucadragon
the only thing you actually need, is a structure that can reproduce, and that can have mutations.
So it has to be alive then, since only life can reproduce.
Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Are viruses alive? Are prions alive? Is fire alive? Crystals? Autocatalytic reactions? Memes?

You boycott yourself with your statements. If only life can reproduce, well, then they have made life in the lab.

It can't be too simple or it would have been oxidized before it got far.
Says who? You?

It needed to have maybe a cell membrane for protection of whatever it did have and it had to have a fair degree of organization in order to be able to reproduce.
Glycoaldehyde doesn't need any of that. And, in the presence of formaldehyde, and with a source of energy like gamma rays, it makes more glycoaldehyde.

And all this had to be there before mutations and natural selection could be of any help whatsoever.
Says the guy who claims that glycoaldehyde is alive.




You are right in what you say and talk about, but perhaps it would be better if you took a softer tone in your posts.. If I thought I was right about something, having some bully telling me I was wrong and basically yelling at me wouldn't convince me to even start thinking otherwise.
It's counter productive in my opinion.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:09 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly. Like any emulsion.

You are right in what you say and talk about, but perhaps it would be better if you took a softer tone in your posts.. If I thought I was right about something, having some bully telling me I was wrong and basically yelling at me wouldn't convince me to even start thinking otherwise.
It's counter productive in my opinion.
I value your critique.

Nevertheless Lester is completely dishonest. "Counter productive" only applies to things capable of being productive.

Read older posts and see if a softer tone is of any use.

In my post replying to gluteus "coward liar" gets edited by the admin, so i guess he shares you opinion.
I don't.
"Saying untrue things intentionally and not showing the courage to address something that has proven you wrong" is exactly the same to me.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:17 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:17 AM on April 24, 2009 :
Exactly. Like any emulsion.

You are right in what you say and talk about, but perhaps it would be better if you took a softer tone in your posts.. If I thought I was right about something, having some bully telling me I was wrong and basically yelling at me wouldn't convince me to even start thinking otherwise.
It's counter productive in my opinion.
I value your critique.

Nevertheless Lester is completely dishonest. "Counter productive" only applies to things capable of being productive.

Read older posts and see if a softer tone is of any use.

In my post replying to gluteus "coward liar" gets edited by the admin, so i guess he shares you opinion.
I don't.
"Saying untrue things intentionally and not showing the courage to address something that has proven you wrong" is exactly the same to me.




I didn't even notice the edit, I never think someones post should be editted unless theres a clear indication of a violation or something.. So I don't share the admins decision in that edit.

And well, I think in that case, I go to a forum where on creationist is really just like a wall, doesn't accept anything, and just spews out the same crap no matter how many times we correct him.. But at such a point, to me, its about the other readers, I'm sure there are readers here that don't post, are just lurking around.
Who cares about a few creationists if you can maybe convince people with doubts, who the liars are and who the scientists are :P
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:58 AM on April 24, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 11 12 ... 29 30 ]
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.