If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie you're an idiot. How many times do you have to be told there there is no such thing as "Within Species" or "Cross Species" evolution.

Well, I don't know... Seems like about 40% of you pinhead science geeks believe that Darwin's Theory explains cross-genus evolution, and it doesn't. Some of you realize it doesn't, so when I am bashing an idiot with the facts, you come along and think I am saying what the idiot said. ET doesn't predict cross-genus evolution, there really isn't a valid scientific theory for this. From everything we know about various species of life, it is impossible in most cases, for it to reproduce across boundaries of its own kind.

Evolution theory is great and wonderful, but it doesn't answer all the questions, in fact it only attempts to answer a few. Some people simply want to attribute more to the theory than it's worthy of, and that's where I come in. If we are going to have an intelligent conversation, we must first get the facts correct. I'm glad you can see there is no such thing as cross-species or within-species evolution, it shows you understand the difference between a theory and reality. Others here, are not that fortunate.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, I don't know... Seems like about 40% of you pinhead science geeks believe that Darwin's Theory explains cross-genus evolution, and it doesn't. Some of you realize it doesn't, so when I am bashing an idiot with the facts, you come along and think I am saying what the idiot said. ET doesn't predict cross-genus evolution, there really isn't a valid scientific theory for this. From everything we know about various species of life, it is impossible in most cases, for it to reproduce across boundaries of its own kind.

Evolution theory is great and wonderful, but it doesn't answer all the questions, in fact it only attempts to answer a few. Some people simply want to attribute more to the theory than it's worthy of, and that's where I come in. If we are going to have an intelligent conversation, we must first get the facts correct. I'm glad you can see there is no such thing as cross-species or within-species evolution, it shows you understand the difference between a theory and reality. Others here, are not that fortunate.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CROSS GENUS EVOLUTION!!! This is something you made up. It does not exist except in your mind!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You don't need to look any further even if you don't believe in an Intelligent Designer. The only reason anybody would, would be for curiosity. The reason for the curiosity may be different, but it doesn't change this basic fact. While you may want to dismiss all believers into some "ID Theorists Science Stopper" category, we have abundantly demonstrated that some of the best scientists are, in fact, believers. Stating this basic thesis over and over doesn't change that one can believe in an Intelligent Designer and still maintain curiosity and a high level of accuracy in testing using a proscribed method.

Some people who are not believers in any higher power or creator will dismiss science as a "bunch of gobbledygook" that is "unimportant". Which would be an equal "stopper". Curiosity drives science, it doesn't drive itself.

Damo, what in the world are you talking about and what does it have to do with science? I am not dismissing anyones beliefs. I am quite simply defining what science is and is not (and playing a lot of whack a mole in the process.).

Curiosity be damned. The fact of the matter is, that in the realm of sciences, the moment you bring in a supernatural causation to explain a phenomena you have stopped science in it's track. What ever it is that you are attempting to describe at that time may be truth and it may not be but that is not the issue here. The very moment you bring a supernatural causation into play to explain something it has stopped being science. Period. End of discussion. That is the century olds rule of science. You seem to be erroneously equating science with curiosity.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, what in the world are you talking about and what does it have to do with science? I am not dismissing anyones beliefs. I am quite simply defining what science is and is not (and playing a lot of whack a mole in the process.).

Curiosity be damned. The fact of the matter is, that in the realm of sciences, the moment you bring in a supernatural causation to explain a phenomena you have stopped science in it's track. What ever it is that you are attempting to describe at that time may be truth and it may not be but that is not the issue here. The very moment you bring a supernatural causation into play to explain something it has stopped being science. Period. End of discussion. That is the century olds rule of science. You seem to be erroneously equating science with curiosity.

No. You are oversimplifying a position.

You state that believing in Jeebus will bring in the "science stopper" because the answer to every question is "because Jeebus did it".

I am showing you, beyond any doubt, that you are wrong. That this position is as simple as telling first graders that you can't subtract a larger number from the smaller one. It simply isn't true, but if you make it simple the kid will learn to subtract better, and will learn integers later.

It's easier to argue a position if you can fit it into a simple box. Defining all belief as "Jeebus did it" isn't what actually happens, it's just what you want because it makes it simple to argue.

"Jeebus did it" is a "science stopper" (Note: Here I am agreeing with you) a belief in Jeebus or an Intelligent Designer does not necessarily make people say "Jeebus did it" and incurious and simple (Note: Here I am not agreeing with all of what you stated and explaining why).

Your scientist, in his explanation, used a logical fallacy and you continue to promote it here. People are more complicated than your simple explanation, and because of that complexity you continue to argue that a belief in a Deity will make a believer say, "Well. Because God did it" and suddenly make them never want to see the "how" or "why" of things.

When Darwin said (paraphrasing), "Wow! Look at what God has done!" it didn't change that what he wrote was science, make him incurious, or suddenly make him start saying, "Well, God did it!" It didn't make him "not a scientist" any more than other scientists that believe.

While people who are "scientists" may try to introduce ID as science, they are wrong. But it is unnecessary to attempt to dismiss all belief as a "science stopper".

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Evolution within species is a valid theory, there is much archeological evidence to suggest this happened.

We are talking about evolution, not animal husbandry. Evolution is specifically something evolving from one species to another.

What you seem to think, that evolution is responsible for cross-genus (species) evolution, is not valid because nothing in science has ever shown that to be the case. It is as whimsical as believing in a God.

I like how you try to pair up something nutty (evolution does not exist) with something logical (God does not exist), equating them so that you can seem more moderate than you really are, when you really don't care about the moderate thing (no God) and any belief in the nutty thing (no evolution) nullifies any sanity any way.

ID science examines the complexity of individual components. The human eye, for example, the human ear is another. These components are comprised of several parts, which independently do nothing, and would serve absolutely no function whatsoever. It is only as a complete component, they are of any value. Therefore, according to Darwin himself, it is impossible for these components to have evolved. Science can't explain this, but you have assumed evolution explains it without any basis... that's called "faith."

Dixie, Darwin famously devoted an entire chapter in "The Descent of Man" proving how an eye could have evolved. You are claiming he argued something that is the opposite of what he actually argued. You are referring to an out of context quote by Darwin:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

This is often quoted by Christian loons to make Darwin look like he disagreed with his theory. However, that's statement is followed with:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."


That makes a lot more sense now doesn't it? The first sentence is merely a rhetorical tool, something that he rips apart in the proceeding sentences, and isn't meant to be taken alone.


He then proceeds to use the entire next chapter to explain how an things like eyes developed. He never argued that it was impossible for them to evolve. That is absurd - he would've been saying that his own theory that he was trying to prove with this book was impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_descent_of_man#Apparently_non-adaptive_features

"Apparently non adaptive features" means "irreducible complexity", and Darwin ripped the argument a new one in "The Descent of Man".

 

[Good Luck]

Damo, what in the world are you talking about and what does it have to do with science? I am not dismissing anyones beliefs. I am quite simply defining what science is and is not (and playing a lot of whack a mole in the process.).

Curiosity be damned. The fact of the matter is, that in the realm of sciences, the moment you bring in a supernatural causation to explain a phenomena you have stopped science in it's track. What ever it is that you are attempting to describe at that time may be truth and it may not be but that is not the issue here. The very moment you bring a supernatural causation into play to explain something it has stopped being science. Period. End of discussion. That is the century olds rule of science. You seem to be erroneously equating science with curiosity.

You are a fucking moron studying hard to be a mere idiot.

There are many, many very good scientists who believe in God. Darwin, Einstein, Fermi, Schroedinger to name a few. Believing in God means they believe at some level "God made it that way" is the ultimate answer to explain the existence, structure, and workings of the universe. That belief in no way "stops" them from investigating HOW God put the universe together, or the rules God put in place to keep it going. Just because one knows God made matter in the form of electrons, neutrons and protons put together in varying numbers to comprise the elements does not diminish the desire to explain why/how the strong and weak nuclear forces interact, or exactly how the number of neutrons in large nuclei stabilizes the atom while a different number results in radioactive breakdown into other elements.

For analogy, if we discover a building made by an ancient/unknown race, knowing it was made by men does not diminish the study of how they made it, the engineering principles they used, etc. If that building is discovered in the future on another planet, knowing another intelligence made the structure would not "end" the investigation of how they made it.

Likewise, the belief/knowledge that the universe was designed by intelligence in no way diminishes the desire - or the use of valid methodology - to discover how it is put together and how/why it works the way it does. (To include living matter.)

As for curiosity, there would BE no investigation without it. Without investigation there would be no science. You are a fool to think otherwise. (or a brain dead fucking moron, but we've already established that fact.)

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You are a fucking moron studying hard to be a mere idiot.

Ah, Good Luck establishes his token "ZOMG YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT FOR NOT AGREEING WITH EVERYTHING I SAY" at the start of his retarded argument. The military and especially the marines should be banned, and all marines should having voting and gun owning rights stripped, because every one I've ever met has devolved into a fascist.

There are many, many very good scientists who believe in God. Darwin, Einstein, Fermi, Schroedinger to name a few.

Darwin was an atheist. And the fact that a few scientists believed in it is obvious and not worth contradicting. But the fact that scientists are probably the only subculture in America that is probably majority atheist should tell you something. Religion is naturally anti-scientific. It has spent centuries persecuting science and though, along with the military and fascists like you.

Believing in God means they believe at some level "God made it that way" is the ultimate answer to explain the existence, structure, and workings of the universe. That belief in no way "stops" them from investigating HOW God put the universe together, or the rules God put in place to keep it going.

It may not, but it usually does. Again, you are trying to make an absolute into a general. There are certainly exceptions to the religion is unscientific rule, but they are exceptions. Religion is majority anti-scientific. Religion is anti-science, anti-logic, anti-human trash.

Just because one knows God made matter in the form of electrons, neutrons and protons put together in varying numbers to comprise the elements

No, he did not, fascist.

does not diminish the desire to explain why/how the strong and weak nuclear forces interact, or exactly how the number of neutrons in large nuclei stabilizes the atom while a different number results in radioactive breakdown into other elements.

Yes it does. It generally does, although there are exceptions. For one thing, religion is simply a waste of time. People pray to god rather than look for a cure to cancer.

For analogy, if we discover a building made by an ancient/unknown race, knowing it was made by men does not diminish the study of how they made it, the engineering principles they used, etc. If that building is discovered in the future on another planet, knowing another intelligence made the structure would not "end" the investigation of how they made it.

Analogies are, generally, idiotic.

Likewise, the belief/knowledge

There can be no knowledge of that because it didin't happen.

that the universe was designed by intelligence in no way diminishes the desire - or the use of valid methodology - to discover how it is put together and how/why it works the way it does. (To include living matter.)

Yes it does. You are, again, trying to make the exception the rule. This is one of your most disingenuous tactics that I notice over and over in your posts.

As for curiosity, there would BE no investigation without it. Without investigation there would be no science. You are a fool to think otherwise. (or a brain dead fucking moron, but we've already established that fact.)

And you're a marine fascist. Go and do us all a favor by putting a bullet in your brain with your guns that you love more than humanity itself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CROSS GENUS EVOLUTION!!! This is something you made up. It does not exist except in your mind!

I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WITHOUT SUCH A THING, EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN MILLIONS OF LIFE FORMS! ...It also exists in the minds of some anti-ID idiots who believe Darwin explained it all, including origin of life!

 

[Cancel3]

You are a fucking moron studying hard to be a mere idiot.

There are many, many very good scientists who believe in God. Darwin, Einstein, Fermi, Schroedinger to name a few. Believing in God means they believe at some level "God made it that way" is the ultimate answer to explain the existence, structure, and workings of the universe. That belief in no way "stops" them from investigating HOW God put the universe together, or the rules God put in place to keep it going. Just because one knows God made matter in the form of electrons, neutrons and protons put together in varying numbers to comprise the elements does not diminish the desire to explain why/how the strong and weak nuclear forces interact, or exactly how the number of neutrons in large nuclei stabilizes the atom while a different number results in radioactive breakdown into other elements.

For analogy, if we discover a building made by an ancient/unknown race, knowing it was made by men does not diminish the study of how they made it, the engineering principles they used, etc. If that building is discovered in the future on another planet, knowing another intelligence made the structure would not "end" the investigation of how they made it.

Likewise, the belief/knowledge that the universe was designed by intelligence in no way diminishes the desire - or the use of valid methodology - to discover how it is put together and how/why it works the way it does. (To include living matter.)

As for curiosity, there would BE no investigation without it. Without investigation there would be no science. You are a fool to think otherwise. (or a brain dead fucking moron, but we've already established that fact.)

GL, Mott has agreed that many scientists believe in God. What he is saying in the passage you quoted has to do with using God as an explanation for how things came to be. He is pointing out the fact that using a deity as an explanation is not science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

GL, Mott has agreed that many scientists believe in God. What he is saying in the passage you quoted has to do with using God as an explanation for how things came to be. He is pointing out the fact that using a deity as an explanation is not science.

But using a deity as an explanation is not any less scientific than using other theories which have no basis of support. You simply can't say you believe millions of life forms emerged from a single cell organism, slap a science sticker on it, and proclaim it more valid than belief in a deity. There is no evidence to support evolution across the various species of life found here. It is no more valid an explanation than a deity. That fact, you conveniently avoid.

Spirituality, we know, has been present in man since the very dawn of civilization... Do you think, if you could travel back in time and take all your science books, and show that first intelligent man all your assorted science, he would believe any less in a deity? Wouldn't it stand to reason, all the principles and methods you call science, would actually support his beliefs in a greater power at work?

Here's the deal in a nutshell... You guys are prejudiced against religion. You are vehemently opposed to belief in God, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Instead, you want to mock God, hurl insults at those who believe in God, and run around with your book of myths, theories and principles claiming they are proof God doesn't exist. Fools? Much!

 

[Topspin]

God is a comic book character and show limited IQ on those who believe.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WITHOUT SUCH A THING, EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN MILLIONS OF LIFE FORMS! ...It also exists in the minds of some anti-ID idiots who believe Darwin explained it all, including origin of life!

Wack a mole, Wack a mole, Wack a mole.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But using a deity as an explanation is not any less scientific than using other theories which have no basis of support. You simply can't say you believe millions of life forms emerged from a single cell organism, slap a science sticker on it, and proclaim it more valid than belief in a deity. There is no evidence to support evolution across the various species of life found here. It is no more valid an explanation than a deity. That fact, you conveniently avoid.

Spirituality, we know, has been present in man since the very dawn of civilization... Do you think, if you could travel back in time and take all your science books, and show that first intelligent man all your assorted science, he would believe any less in a deity? Wouldn't it stand to reason, all the principles and methods you call science, would actually support his beliefs in a greater power at work?

Here's the deal in a nutshell... You guys are prejudiced against religion. You are vehemently opposed to belief in God, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Instead, you want to mock God, hurl insults at those who believe in God, and run around with your book of myths, theories and principles claiming they are proof God doesn't exist. Fools? Much!

There you go. There' sthe false dichotomy I pointed out previously. The Dixie's of the world don't think one can believe in Evolutionary theory with out rejecting religion. How bogus.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

GL, Mott has agreed that many scientists believe in God. What he is saying in the passage you quoted has to do with using God as an explanation for how things came to be. He is pointing out the fact that using a deity as an explanation is not science.

Sol, this is just terribly depressing that so many people just don't know what science is. Our Educational system is failing and failing badly at teaching science at a point in time in history where a knowledge of sciences is so critically important. This is very demoralizing to me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

God is a comic book character and show limited IQ on those who believe.

You know, for your sake and the sake of the rest of you pinheads who apparently think it's in vogue to bash and trash God, I hope you are right and not the Holy Bible. Because, if the Bible is right, eternity is going to be a long time to spend burning in hell.

Here is what shows limited IQ... believing the miracle of life and the wondrous planet we know, was the result of purely random events, chemical reactions, and time. Even more limited, are the IQ's of those who believe a process of animals changing and adapting to their environments, explains or validates the silly notion that millions of forms of life emerged through such a process.

You guys can all line up and throw a bucket of shit at God if you like, I will humbly refrain. Some will say God is infallible, but I don't think so... the tool he created and gave to you, called science... should have been given to the chimps instead!

 

[Cancel3]

You know, for your sake and the sake of the rest of you pinheads who apparently think it's in vogue to bash and trash God, I hope you are right and not the Holy Bible. Because, if the Bible is right, eternity is going to be a long time to spend burning in hell.

Spiritualist but not a christian, huh? lol

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You are a fucking moron studying hard to be a mere idiot.

There are many, many very good scientists who believe in God. Darwin, Einstein, Fermi, Schroedinger to name a few. Believing in God means they believe at some level "God made it that way" is the ultimate answer to explain the existence, structure, and workings of the universe. That belief in no way "stops" them from investigating HOW God put the universe together, or the rules God put in place to keep it going. Just because one knows God made matter in the form of electrons, neutrons and protons put together in varying numbers to comprise the elements does not diminish the desire to explain why/how the strong and weak nuclear forces interact, or exactly how the number of neutrons in large nuclei stabilizes the atom while a different number results in radioactive breakdown into other elements.

For analogy, if we discover a building made by an ancient/unknown race, knowing it was made by men does not diminish the study of how they made it, the engineering principles they used, etc. If that building is discovered in the future on another planet, knowing another intelligence made the structure would not "end" the investigation of how they made it.

Likewise, the belief/knowledge that the universe was designed by intelligence in no way diminishes the desire - or the use of valid methodology - to discover how it is put together and how/why it works the way it does. (To include living matter.)

As for curiosity, there would BE no investigation without it. Without investigation there would be no science. You are a fool to think otherwise. (or a brain dead fucking moron, but we've already established that fact.)

You're not a scientist are you? I'll try to explain this to you very clearly. This is a basic fundamental principle of science. If you don't understand this, you do not understand science.

Science models only and only natural phenomena. It only explains or attempts to explain nature. Nothing else.

One may believe in many belief systems at the same time with equal validity. One can believe in God, Religion, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Science all at the same time. That is not the point I am making.

In the realm of science, when you are trying to understand a phenomena you must explain it from the view point of nature. Understand? You must! When you are explaining or modeling some phenomena the very moment that you interject a supernatural caustion what you are studying or modeling has ceased being science at that precise moment. What you are studying has now become something other than science. Science only utilizes explanations which have natural causes. Supernatural causes are automatically excluded from the realm of science. That does not mean that this belief in a supernatural causation is wrong. It simply means that it is not science.

Darwin understood that, Einstein understood that, Fermi understood that, Schroedinger understood that and I understand that.
This is a bedrock principle of science and has been since before Newton nearly 500 years ago.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Spiritualist but not a christian, huh? lol

Yup! Spiritualists don't necessarily disbelieve the Bible, and belief in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean you are Christian. I don't know if the part about mocking God is true or not, but for your sake, I hope you are right. Damn if I have enough nerve to go against the 2000-year-old testaments. The way I see it, if I was wrong, oh well... I die and rot in the ground and become worm food. I only had to put up with idiot God-bashers part of my life, but that's a small price really. But... If you're wrong... whoa be unto your ass, for you will burn for eternity. Somehow, that doesn't appeal much to me.

 

[Cancel3]

Yup! Spiritualists don't necessarily disbelieve the Bible, and belief in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean you are Christian. I don't know if the part about mocking God is true or not, but for your sake, I hope you are right. Damn if I have enough nerve to go against the 2000-year-old testaments. The way I see it, if I was wrong, oh well... I die and rot in the ground and become worm food. I only had to put up with idiot God-bashers part of my life, but that's a small price really. But... If you're wrong... whoa be unto your ass, for you will burn for eternity. Somehow, that doesn't appeal much to me.

So you are sugesting that people follow a religious belief just in case that belief might be right?

lmao

Now that is even funnier than your ideas on what is or isn't science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're not a scientist are you? I'll try to explain this to you very clearly. This is a basic fundamental principle of science. If you don't understand this, you do not understand science.

Science models only and only natural phenomena. It only explains or attempts to explain nature. Nothing else.

What is "only and only" natural phenomenon?

One may believe in many belief systems at the same time with equal validity. One can believe in God, Religion, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Science all at the same time. That is not the point I am making.

You haven't made any point as far as I can see.

In the realm of science, when you are trying to understand a phenomena you must explain it from the view point of nature. Understand? You must!

But science being incomplete knowledge, can't distinguish what is or isn't "natural."

When you are explaining or modeling some phenomena the very moment that you interject a supernatural caustion what you are studying or modeling has ceased being science at that precise moment.

The very moment you make a determination that something isn't natural and something else is supernatural, you have ceased practicing science.

What you are studying has now become something other than science.

Yes, it has become "faith" in something, in your case, science and not God.

Science only utilizes explanations which have natural causes. Supernatural causes are automatically excluded from the realm of science. That does not mean that this belief in a supernatural causation is wrong. It simply means that it is not science.

Again, science isn't supposed to make conclusions, those require science to prove things, and science doesn't prove. Once you have determined something is not "natural" you have made a conclusion, which is contradictory to the principles of science and enters the realm of faith.

Darwin understood that, Einstein understood that, Fermi understood that, Schroedinger understood that and I understand that.
This is a bedrock principle of science and has been since before Newton nearly 500 years ago.

Yes, they all believed in God, and understood science was a tool God gave them, along with the knowledge to understand it. (You don't!) The bedrock principle of science is to not draw conclusion, which you have already done. The moment you deem something IS natural, IS supernatural, IS NOT natural, IS NOT supernatural, you have drawn a conclusion, and contradicted science principle.

Here's the deal Mott... You are using Science which the Creator of life invented, to try and refute the Creator. First of all, it's not possible, secondly, it's profoundly silly and foolish. The very fact that science works in the way it does, the fact that physics work the way they do, the very nature of nature, is evidence it was designed by intelligence. When justifying his theory of relativity to a skeptic, Einstein said... "God doesn't roll the dice!"