Evolution vs. Creation

[MikeF]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

...and a rare few that desperately write scientific journals to keep the charade going lest they lose their careers.

I love this argument. As if no scientists would want to overturn evolution, become world famous and claim his or her $1,000,000+ Nobel Award.

[MAAT]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is a logical and valid reason to dismiss the claim. The Exodus myth has no evidence, therefore it is dismissed as myth, otherwise leprechauns are also real, there is no evidence that they are not real.

Langoliers wrote: I have 4 archeologists in my family and none claimed that? <- questionmark. Well and what are we to do with the pesky thing?
Conclude that they are in entirely different fields of archeology?
That he never asked? Nor that they offered?
That 4 is not exactly representative nor peer-reviewed...
Though they can always check each other.

[MikeF]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

My conclusions about evolution based on its own principles is not based on any outside evidence. It is self-evident.

"...not based on any outside evidence."

Wow.

[MAAT]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I love this argument. As if no scientists would want to overturn evolution, become world famous and claim his or her $1,000,000+ Nobel Award.

Instead of paying tax they offer awards?

[MAAT]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Every single bit of evidence supports evolution. Every single bit.
There has not been even one piece of evidence refuting evolution. NOT ONE.
You are blinded by your fear of death. Without your belief in god, your life has no meaning, so you lie to yourself even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Someday you may grow up and realize that evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or nonexistence of any god. It is your juvenile and literal interpretation of the bible, an ancient text written by ignorant men, that forces you to reject established fact lest your whole belief system crumbles into dust.
The vast majority of christians have finally come out of their bible induced fog and accepted that evolution is fact. You are in an ever shrinking minority of willfully ignorant believers who cannot adapt to modern knowledge and you will be-you ARE being-pushed further and further to the outermost fringes of civilization.
It's the 21st century, for god's sake. Get with the program or get left out.
It's really up to you. You are clinging to a rapidly sinking ship with lifeboats all around you.

Notice the judging.
An earnest tone and a serious content, without flaming whatsoever, really get's to them.

You can call'm f.i. festering scrophulous resurrected fishfungus of a dickwad candysucker....and you get a smilie. ;?))

And they go all conversationaly on you. Must be god-speek.

[MikeF]

Subduction Zone wrote:

Yahoo, the site you listed forgot that there are two driving forces to evolution. Variation, of which mutation is only part, and natural selection. The writer of your article forgot about natural selection which cleans up the harmful mutations from the genome. Animals with harmful mutations are less likely survive, much less breed, which is what they would have to do to pass on their harmful mutations.
That looks like it might be the work of John Sanford. A creationist who's idea was almost instantaneously debunked.

Actually, if you roam the entire site, there's some interesting tidbits there:

"When I headed off to college (in 1949), I wrote an essay speculating on the possibility that some day we would be able to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients. By the time I finished my formal studies in biology — having learned of the incredible complexity of even the simplest organism — I concluded that such a feat could never be accomplished.

Now I'm not so sure.

Several recent advances suggest that we may be getting close to creating life."

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...

[woodtick57]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
"...not based on any outside evidence."
Wow.

Reminds me of when Aristotle set science back thousands of years, thinking we can percieve truth with our minds....

[Cybele]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

"Only the Real God is the Real Scientist"<quoted text>
Why do you say this?

I say this because God encoded DNA for all intelligent life in his lab, the planets in the universe, where elements were also created. He's not only a Scientist but also a Mathematician, Artist, Architect, and all that.

You are right, atheistic evolution hinders the progress of real science because life could not have started by natural processes on its own. They believe in MUTATION. I believe in PERMUTATION.

I also think there is intelligent life in other planets or galaxies.

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Reminds me of when Aristotle set science back thousands of years, thinking we can percieve truth with our minds....

Yes, Woody, the Mind is all we need to find the truth. Mind power!

[ChristineM]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, if you roam the entire site, there's some interesting tidbits there:
"When I headed off to college (in 1949), I wrote an essay speculating on the possibility that some day we would be able to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients. By the time I finished my formal studies in biology — having learned of the incredible complexity of even the simplest organism — I concluded that such a feat could never be accomplished.
Now I'm not so sure.
Several recent advances suggest that we may be getting close to creating life."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...

I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.

Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...

I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, Woody, the Mind is all we need to find the truth. Mind power!

is that why Aristotle stated that women have a different number of teeth than men? see how well that works!

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I say this because God encoded DNA for all intelligent life in his lab, the planets in the universe, where elements were also created. He's not only a Scientist but also a Mathematician, Artist, Architect, and all that.
You are right, atheistic evolution hinders the progress of real science because life could not have started by natural processes on its own. They believe in MUTATION. I believe in PERMUTATION.
I also think there is intelligent life in other planets or galaxies.

yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...

so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?

when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

[MikeF]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.
Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...
I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

Great links! Thanks for posting them.

[woodtick57]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.
Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...
I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

I love that! "sort of half watched..."

that's why I gave up TV so long ago...i used to sort of half watch $60/month of crap....

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>is that why Aristotle stated that women have a different number of teeth than men? see how well that works!

that's not mental, that's dental. lol

[Benjamin Frankly]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!
It is entirely correct. You are welcome to prove otherwise. No one has yet, and they've been working very hard to find a better model than currently exists.
Genetic engineering does not make new species, it changes current ones for some specific purpose, like seedless grapes.
But seedless grapes is not a positive change for evolution, as obviously, such grapes would go extinct the moment humans stopped growing them.
That is not evolution. Nor does it force evolution.
Now, if you have actual evidence of enough positive mutations occurring in any species that it created a new species, let's see the data. I assure you, you'd be a hero of the scientific community of you could pull that off.
:)

No need the hero has been already here just are just 3 examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphanobrassica
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n67...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot
Please research before you assert! If you won’t be this go away.

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?
when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

So you want something the defies the laws of physics?

Let's see. UK seems to know stuff like Science.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pla...

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
that's not mental, that's dental. lol

and yet his 'mind power' told him this was so...

too bad he didn't use his 'eye power'

( in Aristotle's defense, he was a HUGE Blackhawks fan....)

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want something the defies the laws of physics?
Let's see. UK seems to know stuff like Science.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pla...

yes, I remember that. not really against the laws of physics, just something we don't understand.

the way Galaxies hold together is against the laws of physics we know, but since the laws of physics are the same in all points of observation (as far as we know) then the only logical conclusion is there is data we are not seeing or understanding.

still no supernatural event ever proved. ever. not one.

[MikeF]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?
when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Holmes was probably responsible for my interest in science. I read just about everything written by Doyle when I was a kid.