Rejecting evolution with science...

DJ... said:
But we've now turned an entire thread on its head. Instead of using science to disprove religion, we're now using science to discuss the merits of religion. Not the intention of this thread and not going to continue it in here...
Click to expand...
Thank you for reminding me. I've allwed a derail about the response to the word creotard to happen as well. I will stop responding to that now.

Lets get the thread back on topic and get those sneaky YECs to come present some real science.
 
porchrat said:
I suppose some people might take offence. People often take offence at having their faults pointed out and, for example, how you took offence at a term not at all directed at you because you didn't bother to look the term up. None of that is my problem.

I'm sure many people find many of the things I say offensive. If I had to refrain from speaking every single time I said anything because someone might get offended then I would never be able to voice any criticism on any topic ever.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is that difficult to criticize someone without being offensive.
Anyway, I see you wouldn't like to understand my point of view in the first place, please just don't misrepresent my views as usual.
 
Techne said:
Yes yes, we both agree that creation is not perfect irrespective of vestigial structures. Christians agree (fallen etc.), atheists agree. Does this pose a problem for the existence of a perfect being that created this? Logically, I don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

Last post, I swear. It's either pointless or deceitful...

I don't think it is logically possible for a perfect being to create everything that undergoes change as perfect.
Click to expand...

A being impervious to fault cannot by very definition create something faulty...

Sorry, couldn't help myself...
 
DJ... said:
It's either pointless or deceitful...
Click to expand...
So now you claim that the act of creating a less than perfect creation BY a perfect being is either pointless OR deceitful. Nothing else.

DJ... said:
A being impervious to fault cannot by very definition create something faulty...
Click to expand...
Which is just point number 1) I made above and I think is exactly false.

I would argue that:
1) It is logically possible for a perfect being to create a less than perfect creation.
2) It is logically impossible for a perfect being to create a perfect creation that constantly undergoes change.

If you have some sort of argument, PM me.
 
This is silly - trying to reject evolution with science is like trying to reject spirituality with religion.
Evolution is a product of science
 
joelus said:
Evolution is a product of science
Click to expand...

As far as you're concerned. There are many people who claim otherwise, and some on this forum make claims to the effect that science essentially disproves evolution, like Swa.

So instead of tarnishing every other thread that has the tiniest inkling of evolution in its subject matter, this thread can serve for the central repository of these argument, and the swaths of evidence that is surely still incoming...
 
joelus said:
Evolution is a product of science
Click to expand...

Are you just stringing random words together? A logical conclusion of your statement would be: 'no science, no evolution', which is just a teeny bit utterly nonsensical.

Evolutionary theory might be a product of scientific observation, but evolution will merrily continue regardless of the existence of eggheads in white coats.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Wouldn't it be: Evolution is a product of nature. Science is a tool used by humanity to investigate nature.
Click to expand...

HapticSimian said:
Are you just stringing random words together? A logical conclusion of your statement would be: 'no science, no evolution', which is just a teeny bit utterly nonsensical.

Evolutionary theory might be a product of scientific observation, but evolution will merrily continue regardless of the existence of eggheads in white coats.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Evolution is conceptual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation
an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.
Click to expand...
 
Wow! Just wow!!!

The lack of a basic understanding of language is just mind blowing. You know it is going to happen over and over again, yet it is still suprising. Does that make me mad, to paraphrase Einstein?
 
) Macro and micro evolution are valid scientific distinctions and demands a proper definition for the concept of "species". The mechanisms for macro and micro evolution are likely the same. Live with it, don't live with it.
Click to expand...

can we please get rid of this pseudoscience bs. Evolution is evolution you forget that everything is dependent on that DNA molecule, if it mutates/changes thats an evolutionary process. It doesnt matter if its in the micro world or the "macro" world

Bacteria are used due to time constraints and its easier to fingerprint them and its cheaper. Its not just a single series of bacteria that does this, all of them do. Look up the nightmare scenario in medicine.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbapenems, if you research carbapenems you will find all the evidence you need, even the beta lactamase enzymes are mutating (which is an evolutionary process))

Secondly if it occurs in a single cellular organism it will occur to complex organism because you are derived from one cell (fusion of two "half" cells).

So it is most likely a change in these proteins that resulted in citrate being imported
Click to expand...

This is an evolutionary process ;) ... a change in the DNA to change the sequencing of amino acids in protein synthesis being expressed in enzymes and newer organelles in subsequent generations

That's correct. Evolution is conceptual.
Click to expand...

this is a lost cause .... oh well guess when evolved superbugs infect him he can simply say he doesnt believe in it and through some holy water and survive :wtf: ...

You know what I find funny is when these type of people breed dont vacinate dont believe in evolution and dont complete antibiotics then run to their doctors when the kids have the superbugs and are on a death bed .... suddendly science must find an answer. I just LOL (cruel but its their own fault for being stubborn). Then they start threads on how pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to make money and how doctors and their medicine cant do a thing - to a scenario thats your own fault. Drug resistant Tb is classic example of it, look where it is now. The bugs are evolving and they evolve faster than we can study them, we are losing the fight against disease so badly its not even funny. Sometimes when I read the fingerprinting on our BRAND NEW test compounds I just think to myself "whats the point" the get resistance within 20 hours ... 20 DAMN HOURS and it takes years to even synthesize a working compound :cry: when I go for symposiums and the international speakers share their results and experiments I just wanna throw my work in the air and say "f it we lose im going home"

Perhaps one can argue that this is the form of natural selection for a technological species, one that has managed to contain its environment. Its sad because every child is born a scientist - parents beat the science out of them.

I wonder if its the fickle personality of science that makes people not trust it where as religion is fixed. who knows, be nice to have a psycologist's input on this
 
Last edited:
RiaX said:
can we please get rid of this pseudoscience bs. Evolution is evolution you forget that everything is dependent on that DNA molecule, if it mutates/changes thats an evolutionary process. It doesnt matter if its in the micro world or the "macro" world
Click to expand...
Differentiating between micro- and macro-evolution is valid science ;).

RiaX said:
Bacteria are used due to time constraints and its easier to fingerprint them and its cheaper. Its not just a single series of bacteria that does this, all of them do. Look up the nightmare scenario in medicine.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbapenems, if you research carbapenems you will find all the evidence you need, even the beta lactamase enzymes are mutating (which is an evolutionary process))

Secondly if it occurs in a single cellular organism it will occur to complex organism because you are derived from one cell (fusion of two "half" cells).

This is an evolutionary process ;) ... a change in the DNA to change the sequencing of amino acids in protein synthesis being expressed in enzymes and newer organelles in subsequent generations
Click to expand...
I am not really sure what you are on about here, we seem to agree.
 
I am not really sure what you are on about here, we seem to agree.
Click to expand...

then whats the problem with evolution ?
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
You're not a YEC are you? There is nothing wrong with a religious person believing in their god being the creator, but it is an issue when people reject science based on their religious beliefs (YECs) - these people are the creotards.
Click to expand...
Evotard it is then.

DJ... said:
As far as you're concerned. There are many people who claim otherwise, and some on this forum make claims to the effect that science essentially disproves evolution, like Swa.

So instead of tarnishing every other thread that has the tiniest inkling of evolution in its subject matter, this thread can serve for the central repository of these argument, and the swaths of evidence that is surely still incoming...
Click to expand...
You have been told to stop spreading these lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X