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
     Is science a religion?

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

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did not say that their beliefs in God "enabled" them to study science. I said it "motivated them" to search for scientific mysteries; In an orderly fashion as well.


You said: ďI won't rebute everything you've said simply because I want to make a list of some of the greatest scientists who used God as their motivation and [u]tool /u]for their explorations into the natural order of the world.Ē

If all you mean to say is that people can be motivated by their personal opinions, I have no objections. You donít even have to be religious to be motivated by some outside factor to succeed in life, whether thatís an ego or a drive to please other people.

The confusion of Evolution already being a fact of science instead of a theory is too hap-hazard to encourage that sort of study.


You just donít get it. A scientific theory is a conclusion over several facts. It is a fact that we evolved. The only theoretical part about the theory of evolution is how we evolved.

Intelligent design clearly has, and yet people are already so quick to remove even a sticker from the books encouraging this sort of belief.


The stickers are misleading in that they suggest evolution didnít and doesnít occur. This would be untrue in every respect. In addition, it promotes Intelligent Design as if it were a viable scientific alternative, which it is not.

Not all scientists believe evolution. I don't think those who combine evolution with God are any more correct than the scientists are, and simply because many believe it doesn't make it correct. I could challenge many people who believed that 2+2=5 and I would be correct


Itíd be wise to note that the majority is correct over the issue of 2+2. The vast majority accept the idea that 2+2=4, not 5. Furthermore, if the majority of mathematicians accepted a new, radical idea that changed the basic perception of math, and you didnít agree with it, it would indeed be significant that you do not have as many credentials in the area of math, while the people opposing you do.

I don't believe most scientists believe evolution, and frankly I don't care. The majority can be wrong.


Thatís certainly true. But for the record, more than 99 out of every 100 scientists do accept evolution. There are more evolution-accepting scientists named Steve than there are ID-accepting scientists put together: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

Getting back to your point:

The very wonder of science is that everything in it can be wrong. Einstein completely redefined Gravity after Newtonís time, and odds are, something similar will befall the current Theory of Natural Selection.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


You just don’t get it. A scientific theory is a conclusion over several facts. It is a fact that we evolved. The only theoretical part about the theory of evolution is how we evolved.


Are you saying it's a fact we evolved because we're here?


In addition, it promotes Intelligent Design as if it were a viable scientific alternative, which it is not.


Mostly for people who don't believe in God or aren't confident enough with the theory of Evolution to compete. Which category are you in? Proably the 1st


Furthermore, if the majority of mathematicians accepted a new, radical idea that changed the basic perception of math, and you didn’t agree with it, it would indeed be significant that you do not have as many credentials in the area of math, while the people opposing you do.


LOL Evolution is compared to math.


That’s certainly true. But for the record, more than 99 out of every 100 scientists do accept evolution.


9/10 people accept God, the people would like the case presented

Einstein completely redefined Gravity after Newton’s time, and odds are, something similar will befall the current Theory of Natural Selection.

Einstein redefined gravity in space. Gravity on earth always works, to my knowledge.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:36 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you saying it's a fact we evolved because we're here?


Yes, Milken. My reasoning is strictly limited to a fallacious circle that for some reason goes unmentioned in scientific studies on evidence for evolution: because weíre here. PleaseÖ Thatís an ID argument, not a scientific one.

In addition, it promotes Intelligent Design as if it were a viable scientific alternative, which it is not.

Mostly for people who don't believe in God or aren't confident enough with the theory of Evolution to compete. Which category are you in? Proably the 1st


Right. Never mind the countless theistic evolutionists. It feels like Iím mentioning people like Ken Miller for the tenth time in one month.

Furthermore, if the majority of mathematicians accepted a new, radical idea that changed the basic perception of math, and you didnít agree with it, it would indeed be significant that you do not have as many credentials in the area of math, while the people opposing you do.


LOL Evolution is compared to math.


I did no such thing. If you would prefer, I could replace the words ďmathĒ with ďchemistry,Ē ďpharmacy,Ē or ďmeteorology.Ē

9/10 people accept God, the people would like the case presented


No kidding? Disregarding that 5/10 people in the US believe the sun circles the earth, letís focus on what that figure means: the majority of scientists also believe in God. Try to understand it one more time: evolution does not negate a supernatural deity.

But waitÖ what if youíre talking about Christianity in specifics, and not just belief in a God? A great number of people in the United States happen to believe not only that there is a God, but that the world was created in six days. And the ToE certainly negates that belief. YECís want their case presented. Whatís a solution to this problem? Well, itís not Intelligent Design, which makes no mention of a Christian deity, or the age of our earth, and can even concede to the accepted model of Earth geology: a 4.5 billion-year-old planet.

Einstein redefined gravity in space. Gravity on earth always works, to my knowledge.


I never said Newton was refuted, and neither did I say that Evolution likely will be refuted. Letís examine what I did say:

Einstein completely redefined Gravity after Newtonís time, and odds are, something similar will befall the current Theory of Natural Selection.

That I do believe. Like the ToG has, the ToE may be reformed.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:21 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, Milken. My reasoning is strictly limited to a fallacious circle that for some reason goes unmentioned in scientific studies on evidence for evolution: because we’re here. Please… That’s an ID argument, not a scientific one.

I went on what you said, no evidence.

Right. Never mind the countless theistic evolutionists. It feels like I’m mentioning people like Ken Miller for the tenth time in one month.

It was not a serious comment. Ken? You know him personally. Of course there are people who  believe both Goddidit always works. I could be one if E was more persuasive.

LOL Evolution is compared to math.

I did no such thing. If you would prefer, I could replace the words “math” with “chemistry,” “pharmacy,” or “meteorology.”

Thank you, I'll take meterology. I feel better now.

Try to understand it one more time: evolution does not negate a supernatural deity.

Who said it did?

But wait… what if you’re talking about Christianity in specifics, and not just belief in a God? A great number of people in the United States happen to believe not only that there is a God, but that the world was created in six days. And the ToE certainly negates that belief. YEC’s want their case presented. What’s a solution to this problem? Well, it’s not Intelligent Design, which makes no mention of a Christian deity, or the age of our earth, and can even concede to the accepted model of Earth geology: a 4.5 billion-year-old planet.

ID is a comprimse to a Creationist, so I assume. I'm sure you're an atheist so your decision is easy, which is cool. And you may not believe me, but I haven't  completely made up my  mind yet for E/C. Things looked specifically designed to me, the Universe is unrefutable with current concepts.
   For some, teaching YEC is too close to saying GOD, BIBLE, FLOOD, and GENESIS. ID is more of an open. I'm not sure if most US believe in a young earth.

Specifically ToE doesn't rule out a Creator, but for some not ruling him in, is ruling him out. Like if I acknowledge some people responsible for making this site interesting and I don't mention EntwickelnCollin. I'm not saying you didn't contribute nor am I saying that you did.


That I do believe. Like the ToG has, the ToE may be reformed.

It has to be because I think it's masquerading  as a big wolf outfit as a sheep. The overall explaination is too much for the factual observations.

Both sides being public, allows students to pick a side and as an adult defend or refute a side. A more balanced approach will speed up the process.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:46 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Both sides being public, allows students to pick a side and as an adult defend or refute a side. A more balanced approach will speed up the process.


Both sides already are public. Any interested student, you and I among them, can chose to research this topic at will over a variety of media sources.

But until someone writes a scientific report on Intelligent Design and circulates it through the process of Peer Review, and then goes on to show how you can falsify ID, it must stay out of the science classroom as an alternative to the ToE.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:14 AM on March 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

   Fair enough, how do you feel about people teaching Young Earth Creation? I does make sense to present a paper for peer review, if that has not been done yet, they're really behind.  
  Also, publishing a work can be a prejudice process, that's another issue. The science field and many of its organizations are filled with evolutionists, you see where I'm going. I know of some scientists who were fired for publishing reports that only implied the earth was young(zircon or helium related I think) without making any broad statements about it.

YEC gets into alot of dating, geology, and physics for a case saying the earth and universe are young. I'm not completely familiar with it. That's why I don't say I'm a Creationist, although there are old earth Creationist, it's confusing to some.
    Intelligent Design, I think is an old earth creationist.
    As I stated before alot of highly intelligent people believe in Evolution, most are not theist, I don't think, maybe things have changed.
  Alan Rex Sandage said he was reluctant to reveal himself as a believer(religous) because the "oppobrium was so severe", in other words, it was an ostracization, a shunning.
   Maybe I'm blind but I just can not understand how the marquee experiments clearly explain how a bacteria turned into a man.
   I swear I could get enough pictures of similar inanimate objects and it would give the "appearance" of evolution although the objects are similar yet distinct. For me, that isn't a sale either.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:10 AM on March 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fair enough, how do you feel about people teaching Young Earth Creation?


Young Earth Creation is more like an alternative to ďOld Earth Creation,Ē than Evolution. Itís also religiously rooted, and even less dressed up in scientific flare than ID. Anything to do with a holy book should be taught in a religion class. Thereís plenty of that in college for the Theology majors.

Intelligent Design, I think is an old earth creationist.
   As I stated before alot of highly intelligent people believe in Evolution, most are not theist, I don't think, maybe things have changed.
 Alan Rex Sandage said he was reluctant to reveal himself as a believer(religous) because the "oppobrium was so severe", in other words, it was an ostracization, a shunning.


At any rate, there are a lot of very well-known religious evolutionists. My favorite, Kenneth R. Miller, is a professor of Biology at Brown University, and heís possibly Michael Beheís most hard line critic.

Maybe I'm blind but I just can not understand how the marquee experiments clearly explain how a bacteria turned into a man.
  I swear I could get enough pictures of similar inanimate objects and it would give the "appearance" of evolution although the objects are similar yet distinct. For me, that isn't a sale either.


Computerís donít reproduce themselves. However, if it were possible for a computer to reproduce by duplicating its blueprints, and there was room for error during that duplication, we probably would see evolution of computers. Letís say, for instance, the former generation of computers is supposed to have a specific hard drive called 547, which allows for 20 gigabytes of storage space. But during the duplication process, the Ď5í gets accidentally replaced with a 3, so we have hard drive # 557 instead. This hard drive allows for 20.2 gigabytes of storage space. Now introduce the environmental factor: consumers. Assuming the price for a computer with a 557 hard drive isnít that much higher than a computer with a 547 hard drive, the consumers are all going to purchase the one with higher storage space. What happens to the others? Scrap metal, of course.

You can also have it both ways, though. If in real life, all computers are designed by human beings, the forces of Natural Selection still have an effect on what computers survive the economic process. Owners of a computer company always scrap the designs that donít sell.

Also, publishing a work can be a prejudice process, that's another issue. The science field and many of its organizations are filled with evolutionists, you see where I'm going.


The scientific field was also full of prejudiced scientists who didnít take Darwinís work seriously either. He still got published. The least the ID groups can do is try, which they havenít done.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:50 PM on March 26, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006 :
I did not say that their beliefs in God "enabled" them to study science. I said it "motivated them" to search for scientific mysteries; In an orderly fashion as well.


You said: ďI won't rebute everything you've said simply because I want to make a list of some of the greatest scientists who used God as their motivation and [u]tool /u]for their explorations into the natural order of the world.Ē

If all you mean to say is that people can be motivated by their personal opinions, I have no objections. You donít even have to be religious to be motivated by some outside factor to succeed in life, whether thatís an ego or a drive to please other people.

The confusion of Evolution already being a fact of science instead of a theory is too hap-hazard to encourage that sort of study.


You just donít get it. A scientific theory is a conclusion over several facts. It is a fact that we evolved. The only theoretical part about the theory of evolution is how we evolved.

Intelligent design clearly has, and yet people are already so quick to remove even a sticker from the books encouraging this sort of belief.


The stickers are misleading in that they suggest evolution didnít and doesnít occur. This would be untrue in every respect. In addition, it promotes Intelligent Design as if it were a viable scientific alternative, which it is not.

Not all scientists believe evolution. I don't think those who combine evolution with God are any more correct than the scientists are, and simply because many believe it doesn't make it correct. I could challenge many people who believed that 2+2=5 and I would be correct


Itíd be wise to note that the majority is correct over the issue of 2+2. The vast majority accept the idea that 2+2=4, not 5. Furthermore, if the majority of mathematicians accepted a new, radical idea that changed the basic perception of math, and you didnít agree with it, it would indeed be significant that you do not have as many credentials in the area of math, while the people opposing you do.

I don't believe most scientists believe evolution, and frankly I don't care. The majority can be wrong.


Thatís certainly true. But for the record, more than 99 out of every 100 scientists do accept evolution. There are more evolution-accepting scientists named Steve than there are ID-accepting scientists put together: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

Getting back to your point:

The very wonder of science is that everything in it can be wrong. Einstein completely redefined Gravity after Newtonís time, and odds are, something similar will befall the current Theory of Natural Selection.




How do you know we evolved? Did you watch the Human race evolve? have recreated it in a lab? can you trace us back to our ancestral cell? If not than you are just grabbing at a belief like the rest of us.

One last thing. If you can show me documentation of evolution being successfully recreated in a lab I will be the first to convert. Until then, next topic please.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:46 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


How do you know we evolved? Did you watch the Human race evolve? have recreated it in a lab? can you trace us back to our ancestral cell? If not than you are just grabbing at a belief like the rest of us.


The answer to the underlined portion is yes.

One last thing. If you can show me documentation of evolution being successfully recreated in a lab I will be the first to convert. Until then, next topic please.


Please refer back to my response in this thread.

So, now that you've "converted"...


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/9/2007 at 11:39 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:32 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What kind of cell exactly did we evolve from. Exact cell.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:01 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What kind of cell exactly did we evolve from. Exact cell.


You're not helping your case by abandoning a topic when your position goes in the tanker and asking for evidence of something completely different. You said you were "convert" and accept the Theory of Evolution if I could supply just one observed instance of evolution in a lab. I provided about ten, and you've completely ignored it.

At any rate, the answer is here.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:52 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What you provided me did not take to any thing.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:18 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What you provided me did not take to any thing.


You are either dishonest, blind, or illiterate. The link brings you to an article on prokaryotic cells.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:05 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How bout stubborn?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:07 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How bout stubborn?


Sure, I'll settle with that. When you claim a specific amount of evidence would be sufficient for your "conversion" and repeatedly fall back on more and more and more specific demands, yes, I'd say you're stubborn.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:28 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look out side, you might see a blue moon out today. Besides how do you know I didn't convert to evolution and then convert back again? I do believe in micro evolution.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:33 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know we evolved?

By studying the evidence.

Did you watch the Human race evolve?

As science has shown us, direct observation is not needed.  The evidence makes evolution the only conclusion.

have recreated it in a lab?

Yes, of course they have!  From here:
Evolution_in_the_Lab

"So with yeast, we greatly increase our chances at finding that needle in the haystack, a new species. In fact scientists have found that they can create new species of yeast in the lab and they find them in nature too."

You said:  "One last thing. If you can show me documentation of evolution being successfully recreated in a lab I will be the first to convert. Until then, next topic please."  There you have evolution being successfully recreated in the lab, if you're a man of your word, you'll now have to accept evolution.

can you trace us back to our ancestral
cell?


Don't have to do that to validate evolution.

If not than you are just grabbing at a belief like the rest of us.

Sorry, evolution isn't a belief, it's a scientific theory.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:16 AM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hypothesis.

From the link you gave, "Instead of our mule example, letís consider humans and chimps. Six million years ago or so, a species of primates became separated into two groups. These groups didnít come into contact with one another for a long time."

What kept them apart for a few million years?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:02 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What kept them apart for a few million years?

Different ecological niches.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:42 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So an ecological difference, is enough to separate so groups of a species for millions of years? It would require something drastic to do that.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:10 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So an ecological difference, is enough to separate so groups of a species for millions of years? It would require something drastic to do that.

Not at all, a small mutation can allow an organism to exploit a new ecological niche it couldn't before.  Take nylon eating bacteria.  The bacteria lived near pools of waste nylon, before the mutation that allowed it to digest nylon, this nylon was neutral to it but once it evolved to consume it, it could exploit this new niche in it's environment.  So, it doesn't have to take anything drastic, a mutation could allow the organism to exploit an ecological niche in it's environment that previously it could not.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:41 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting. I still find it hard to totally rely on mutations that more so than not would kill off or reduce in numbers the population in question. It is relatively easy to see bacteria mutating successfully, but not to the point where they are forming machines so complex that man has not even been able to match it in our creations.


Also sorry about my one of my posts, it has been brought to my attention that it was a personal attack, and that is not beneficial in any way.

(Edited by SilverStar 1/11/2007 at 10:25 PM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:23 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still find it hard to totally rely on mutations that more so than not would kill off or reduce in numbers the population in question.

But most mutations are neutral...
And evolution isn't JUST mutations, you're forgetting about natural selection which filters out the detrimental mutations and keeps the good mutations.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:50 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However to rely on natral selection entirly, does not explain how something that is criticl can come about.

Wings for instance would be useless if you took out major components.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However to rely on natral selection entirly, does not explain how something that is criticl can come about.
Wings for instance would be useless if you took out major components.


Depends on what components you took out.  I think this is another major misconception you have about evolution.  There was never a stage in the evolution of the wing where it was useless.  Each stage would have to confer some advantage to the organism or it would be selected against.  How does natural selection, when combined with mutations that create new information, NOT explain what we see?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:17 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

IF the wing was good for something than it would specialize in that aria, not in flight.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:14 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

IF the wing was good for something than it would specialize in that aria, not in flight.

Why?  Why couldn't it have multiple functions?
Many animals that fly today have wings that have multiple functions, like bats.  My oringinal point stands, each stage of wing evolution conferred some advantage to the organism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:45 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes it could, however it would not function in flight until it was mostly formed for such. So in the beggining stages, it would be useless for flight, and would evolve to better serve the areas that it was currently handling.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:04 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes it could, however it would not function in flight until it was mostly formed for such. So in the beggining stages, it would be useless for flight, and would evolve to better serve the areas that it was currently handling.


It did. ...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:12 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes it could, however it would not function in flight until it was mostly formed for such. So in the beggining stages, it would be useless for flight, and would evolve to better serve the areas that it was currently handling.

Bats use their wings for flight and yet use them to walk.
And how does this contradict my point that every stage of wing evolution gave the organism a survival advantage?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:59 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However if they were designed closer to what they are today than the wing could be easily used for more than one purpose. Living organisms are nothing more than really complex machines, machines do not just come into being. If they did than no one would have to make hard drives, since they would be appearing by themselves, and as a result of them coming into being they would create computers.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:39 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However if they were designed closer to what they are today than the wing could be easily used for more than one purpose.

But they weren't designed closer to what they are today.  We clearly see the arms of non birds evolving into the wings of birds.  Looking at the evidence, we see the different stages of wing evolution.  If wings were intelligently designed why to we see earlier animals with different proto wings?

Living organisms are nothing more than really complex machines, machines do not just come into being.

But complex organisms didn't just come into being, they evolved from simpler organisms, so this can't be an argument against evolution.  And living organisms aren't really "nothing more than complex machines", machines don't reproduce.  We see the processes that can lead to increasing complexity, they have been observed, tested and verified.  Your analogy is unconvincing and wrong.

If they did than no one would have to make hard drives, since they would be appearing by themselves, and as a result of them coming into being they would create computers

Why in the world would hard drives and computers evolve?  And how does this invalidate evolution?  You're trying to use bad analogies that just don't apply and don't really make a lot of sense.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:36 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A bacteria is fare more advanced than car.

And in a way computers evolve, but still only as the intelligence in the computer company learned from their mistakes and come to new understandings.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:14 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A bacteria is fare more advanced than
car.


Explain how it's more advanced....  And a bacteria is still not a machine, it reproduces, machines do not.  

And in a way computers evolve, but still only as the intelligence in the computer company learned from their mistakes and come to new understandings.

Sure,  a computer changes but it doesn't reproduce imperfectly, that's the point you keep ignoring.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:24 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any arrangement of components that is capable of preforming work is a machine.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:35 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any arrangement of components that is capable of preforming work is a machine.

The dictionary describes a machine as an apparatus capable of performing work, life isn't an apparatus.

Are you going to answer any of my other points or are you going to keep avoiding them?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:41 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apparatus - a group of structurally different organs working together in the performance of a particular function.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:46 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still say your analogies are worthless...
Life shows no signs of being intelligently designed and you've failed to show us any evidence of intelligent design.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:56 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we could make an army of robots that could reproduce and repair themselves, than they would be on appear with life. It takes mans' best minds to make something that can walk on two feet feasible. When you walk on a flat surface your brain makes millions of calculations and adjustments to keep you from falling over. If this happened in the conscious part of the brain you wouldn't go more than 100 feet upright.

And if evolution is true than why are we worried about endangered species? Anything that can not adapt to us should die, because they are weak.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:05 AM on January 14, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if evolution is true than why are we worried about endangered species? Anything that can not adapt to us should die, because they are weak.


Evolution says nothing about what should happen--just what has happened and what does happen.

The worry about endangered species is that we are destroying the ecosystem. We are the first species in the history of evolution that has attained the power to destroy all life.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:33 AM on January 14, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So. Every thing dies, they just weren't fit to live.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:36 PM on January 14, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So. Every thing dies, they just weren't fit to live.


That depends on what you mean by "fit." If you're throwing in a subjective meaning that's synonymous to "deserve," then no, that's not how evolution works.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:35 PM on January 14, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I mean that if you cannot adapt than we shouldn't worry about it, that would be their problem.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:14 PM on January 14, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I mean that if you cannot adapt than we shouldn't worry about it, that would be their problem.


Again, evolution doesn't say anything about what people "should" do. Is it in our best interest to help the disadvantaged? No. But the moral question is left up to philosophy and religion.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:51 PM on January 15, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why worry about philosophy? In many cases the preservation of another is instinctual.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:33 PM on January 30, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The biggest obstacle is terminology. Evolutionist refer to it as Evolution not the theory. The Theory of Evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin as a theory for future generation to work with and build upon knowing that not every thing he stated and surmised saw going to be found true. Creationist love to throw in antiquated terms to twist and confuse in order to prove there point knowing that most people are not fully knowledgeable of current terms, studies and findings. Scopes Monkey Trial, Theory of Evolution, Missing Link... all terms long since dead in the realm of evolutionary science. No Creationist would ever try to dismiss open heart surgery by stating that bloodletting is useless. But in all actuality medicine is a theory because nothing is set in stone. Every doctor worth his salt know that there are always risks in even the most routine treatment... that why it is called a Practice. It is always changing and being built upon. No one questions the Mathmatics or "Number Theory" or Music Theory. Does this mean that music is not real or that you no longer need to balance you check book... try explaining that to you bank.

Also, science is not just a study of naturalistic explinations... again antiquated.
Science:
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.a particular branch of knowledge.
7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Science needs to be respected and untarnished by nonscientific, or political veiw or the result is bad science and a manifest destiny of failure.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 5:03 PM on March 19, 2007 | 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.