RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 10:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster The statement below says more about what you know than it does about Darwin or the Galapagos. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As far as I know Darwin did not discover any new species on the Galapogos islands. He found variants on existing species. No sir , since I was speaking off the top of my head as distinct from out of my arse , I do mean MY arse, must be careful here, the Kansan Kowboy or his evolved equivelant might be listening, and also speaking on an international stage , I decided to hedge my bets just in case. What I believe I know tells me that he discovered new types of Finches and the the old Tortoises. One of whom has just died. Had no sex life to speak of. As an aside Darwin believed in GOD., I think.!!! How wotisname thinks I dismiss science when I make reference to scientific knowledge that along with statistical analysis demolishes Natural Selection, I must leave for you to decide. Just seen the argument that change from white to black of moths during industrial revolution in UK "proves Evolution" Does no such thing. What evolutionists need to provide is the record of species A changing to species B this they CANNOT do. I think lol Prove me wrong by use of the scientific method! Another post says all you need is DNA then..."argument to effect that all else follows".....Thats the problem poster; DNA is so complicated what leads you to believe it came about by chance.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 10:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave How wotisname thinks I dismiss science when I make reference to scientific knowledge that along with statistical analysis demolishes Natural Selection, I must leave for you to decide. Well, you've done it again, you've waved aside the beliefs of the scientific community, and asserted "scientific knowledge and statistical analysis" that do not exist. There is noone, noone, with scientific training, who believes in creationism or it's new surrogate "intelligent design", save for a few crackpots, or people on the payroll of the Discovery Institute, who believe these ideas. Why don't you go to the halls of your Oxford, and hold up your little dime store novel on ID and rail against the professors of the Biology Department for their conspiracy to suppress the real truth about nature? Why don't you go to the campus of your GlaxoSmithKline, and ask the CEO why his molecular biologists are all developing drugs based on methods of study that require acceptance of the fact of Common Descent? Don't you ever wonder, why your body has so many faulty structures and systems, if it was designed by a being of divine intelligence?

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 11:36:38 AM)
"DNA is so complicated what leads you to believe it came about by chance" .....it is just as valid to ask you why you clearly believe it didn't arise by chance. Apparent and real complexity arise naturally. This is the central crux of why people choose to believe in intelligent design....things like DNA are so complex they can not have arisen without some form of design. However that's less to do with an accurate summation of the universe than it is an acute failure of imagination. The universe deals in seriously big numbers, and as Pratchett is so fond of saying 'one in a million chances happen nine times out of ten'....ooh yes, and back to your thing about DNA, well occams razor suggest chance as the least complex explanation.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 12:07:09 PM)
Galapagos is famous for its multituted of endemic species, meaning species that are only found in one specific area, meaning, yes, they were newly discovered species. I just don't understand why those who believe in God feel they can't believe in God and Darwinism? It is not like evolution happened "by chance." Those who were most fit to survive procreated, and if they were born with a genetic mutation in their species that gave them an advantage, that mutation was passed to their offspring. Everyone is slightly genetically different from the next, this is obvious. Over millions and millions of years of "slightly different" offspring, those small changes add up.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 12:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another post says all you need is DNA then..."argument to effect that all else follows".....Thats the problem poster; DNA is so complicated what leads you to believe it came about by chance. First of all, noone says that DNA appeared spontaneously, from nowhere, either. The prevailing belief in the scientific community is that an "RNA world" predates the DNA/protein based world. RNA are simpler molecules that can both encode structure/function just as DNA does, and they can also have catalytic functions, as proteins do. Now, I suppose you can then switch the question to... "But where did RNA come from?". Well, that is a good question, and one that people are working on today. For an example of a scientific manuscript of a few years ago with a proposal on that question that's actually available free online, see BMC Evolutionary Biology: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/12 And, one can ask, "How did the transition from RNA-based life to DNA/protein based life occur? Another fine question. And another one for which inquery is currently underway. For a glimpse of how this may have happened, see: http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html These questions won't be answered completely by science overnight. But the understanding of nature is evolving, and we will get there. [;)]

Najakcharmer -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Ummm. Do you mind not posting copyrighted materials, especially without giving the author credit? And second of all, it is filled with opinion and bugger all actual supporting documentation. I asked for and recieved permission from the author to repost the document. I also erred on the side of respecting his privacy by not posting his name, as I already know that he is a very private indvidual who shies away from public notice. In his last communication, he concurred that this was a good idea.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:15:48 PM)
First of all I do think this debate is very interesting but the really amusing thing about it is how the believers...YES BELIEVERS in Natural Selection also believe that they are arguing from a rational standpoint. They use assertion...no statistical rebuttal of Evolution exists. Wrong. Probabilities of even the basic amino acids appearing by chance have been estimated at 1:10^40000 (something like that I have no textbook with me), that is the number of mutations required to occur; all of the RIGHT kind. ie a logical AND function and then a similar order of magnitude to produce the proteins, this is AFTER the time required to produce carbon, from any primordial "whatever". Just ain't the time matey.. Will post this cos I keep getting crashes if I stay in edit too long

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:19:19 PM)
I find it amusing you could make such an accusation after stating Darwin didn't discover any new species on the Galapagos, which is blatantly false.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:35:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave They use assertion...no statistical rebuttal of Evolution exists. Wrong. Probabilities of even the basic amino acids appearing by chance have been estimated at 1:10^40000 (something like that I have no textbook with me). Have another pint. Already 50+ years ago now, it was demonstrated by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey that amino acids can be generated spontaneously in their laboratory using an approximation of the primordial soup of water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia, and adding electricity (as would be present by lightning). Presto, amino acids. Probability=1. While the validity of that laboratory model has since rightly come under attack by scientists due to newer knowledge about that prebiotic atmosphere's composition, if you think that there is anything difficult about making amino acids from simple raw materials - wrong. 1 in 1E40, eh? Wow, Miller and Urey sure were lucky!

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:36:04 PM)
Following on, when you have arrived at the proteins the process of of the development of life has hardly started. They have to combine, hope I haven't got this backwards or out of order, (the argument holds regardless)into the horrendously complicated RNA DNA molecules. Once again the same logical AND function ie things must develop in exactly the right order or total uselessness results. A constituent molecule in the "wrong" place and crash... just like a computor programme with one minor glitch. Again totally implausible to BELIEVE this occured by chance. The whole unlikely edifice based on chance JUST DOESN'T WORK. Sorry fundamentalist evolutionists but that IS the case. Regarding say the birds on Galapogos as they are genetically identical to mainland finches then evolutionists apparently believe that evolution has occurred more than once. Oh dear...Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear...dont forget folks evolutioists are the rational ones lol

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:39:53 PM)
"Regarding say the birds on Galapogos as they are genetically identical to mainland finches then evolutionists apparently believe that evolution has occurred more than once. Oh dear...Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear...dont forget folks evolutioists are the rational ones lol " Sorry you lost me here. Maybe you don't understand what the definition of species is? And evolution occuring more than once? Are you serious? I think the theory is that it is a constant process.

SirKenin -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:50:14 PM)
I am trying to think of a lesson here that can be learned from Family Guy....

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut it was demonstrated by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey that amino acids can be generated spontaneously .... if you think that there is anything difficult about making amino acids from simple raw materials - wrong. 1 in 1E40, eh? Wow, Miller and Urey sure were lucky! Naagh they weren't lucky...they controlled the experiment and found what the experiment was designed to produce. By the way....do you know the formula for the Methane molecule ? I dont... I am going out on a limb but I bet its complicated. Carbon Hydrogen based ? One amino acid eh? we are are only about 40 million mega light years from producing LIFE. As for HUMAN LIFE. add a few zillions lol

Alumbrado -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 1:52:25 PM)
It is standard woo-woo/believer logic..... make jumbled claims about what evolution/science/statistics is, mangle a few buzz words, and then demand that someone else prove your mess. And after ignoring relatively simple facts the first few times they are brought up (like the bacteria mutations that were accurately predicted by evolutionary theory), announce that you are being insulted because you are too smart for everyone else, and leave declaring victory. Seen it a thousand times on the skeptical forums. But you know what I havent seen? A single successful claimant for the Randi $million. (Or anyone who can come up with the first shred of proof that this so called 'God' of theirs isn't simply the invention of a bored Cthulu).[8D]

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave By the way....do you know the formula for the Methane molecule ? I dont... I am going out on a limb but I bet its complicated. Carbon Hydrogen based ? Yes. I do. I actually am a scientist, and understand what we are talking about - virtually everything you say is either a confused version of the truth or bold assertions completely divorced from reality. Have another pint. I have had my fill here of you.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:07:05 PM)
One last post folks but another inconvenient fact that evolutionists have to swallow is that evolution speeded up about 500 million years ago. That is, an apparently random chance based process suddenly changed pace. I arsk ya. BELIEVE anything they will. If it were truly occuring in a random fashion AND and was chance based it would slow down because of the increased complexity of the structures required to change. Unless of course it was being directed !!!!!! The fossil record does not support the concept of Evolution by Natural Selection. Thats a fact. But if I were a Univ. Prof. living a comfortable life I would not be too happy about that lol My department might have to evolve.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut virtually everything seeksfemslave says is either a confused version of the truth or bold assertions completely divorced from reality. Have another pint. I have had my fill here of you. Applying my expertise in cod phsychology Daddy I am as sure as I can be that if you could demolish my arguments by counter argument nothing would give you greater pleasure LOL

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut virtually everything seeksfemslave says is either a confused version of the truth or bold assertions completely divorced from reality. Have another pint. I have had my fill here of you. Applying my expertise in cod phsychology Daddy I am as sure as I can be that if you could demolish my arguments by counter argument nothing would give you greater pleasure LOL It's not possible to "demolish your arguements" because you simply ignore evidence and logic and continue to spew patent BS. If I had to convince a committee of intellectuals, I could win. But that is not the task. And there really is nothing to stop you from belching puke ad infinitum. The smartest thing I could have done was just to avoid speaking with you entirely, the very meaning of my first reply - "To argue with a fool only proves there are two". So, I suppose you have gotten me there - I am a fool as well.

femalewonderer -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:32:16 PM)
Species DO evolve. To say something else is to not accept the fact and proves we find in Gods nature. But who set the parameters for what is good "design" and what is not and eventually will evolve further? GOD!!! Look at the croks, they have not changed in millions of years, they have something in ther "design" that fits their place on earth, and therefore God has not done anything to them. I also believe that when the dinosaurs stopped evolving, and stayed pretty much the same for tens of times og years longer that humans ever have existed, HE was the one who made the catastroph that changed Earths parameters. After that there wasn't enough resources to sustain that many huge animals. As a result more intelligent creatures evolved. Not only us, but other animals that have large brains, all adapted to their place on Earth. To bad people have becom too "big-brained" to live by nature anymore. Throwing trash everywhere, mass-pollution...

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 2:33:25 PM)
Daddy do you mean an intellecchual (sic) who believes in Evolution. Surely you wouldnt load the dice in your favour. Wud U ? Richard Dawkins has taken refuge in EXACTLY that approach. Why should I have to justify the theories...they are true !!!!!!! How scientific is that ? Just seen femalewonderer's post. Species change but there is no evidence that they change into different species as required by Darwinian Evolution

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125