ib1yysguy
Junior Member
God is not a theory. Evolution is substantiated by 150 years of evidence in MANY different scientific disciplines. There is simply no parallel.
If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
God is not a theory. Evolution is substantiated by 150 years of evidence in MANY different scientific disciplines. There is simply no parallel.
wouldn't those be instinctual behaviors? Not learned?
that's very interesting.
No, it was learned. Basically the animal was trained to react in a certain way when introduced to a specific chemical.
We'd introduce the chemical, which caused no reaction in the animal at all, then we shocked it (well the doctor at the museum did) which caused it to react. Then introduced the chemical, shocked it...
This was repeated until the animal would react when the chemical (which it wouldn't react to normally) was introduced without any following shock.
Then, later, when the animal reproduced, the test was performed again. Both animals reacted to introduction of the chemical with no following shock.
The animal was trained to react to something it normally had no reaction to, then the offspring also continued to react. This was learned behavior passed on generationally.
If I remember correctly, the animal he did this to was a paramecium....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
can someone explain how trigonometry is a learned behavior
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Maybe I could have picked a better example. Regardless, the point (no surprise) seems to be way above your head.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You didn't understand it until you learned it in math class.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's always fascinating how simple-minded morons like ib1 will juxtapose the argument of a theory regarding evolutionary process with creation or intelligent design. It's almost as if he fully believes evolution theory explains origin of life, and disproves the possibility of intelligent design. Evolution theory is very simple, it simply says... Shit Changes! It doesn't deal with, or theorize on, how shit originated. Yet, he wants to propose this argument. Amazing!
The contradicting theory to intelligent design/creation, is called "Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Now.... Within the study of Abiogenesis Theory, we have an abundance of sub theories, some contradict one another or cancel each other out, and they all have inherent flaws or unknown tangibles, which can't be confirmed or verified. Here is a list of the possibilities:
The Primordial Soup Theory
The deep sea vent theory
Eigen's hypothesis
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis
"Genes first" models: the RNA world
"Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others
Autocatalysis
Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model
"Primitive" extraterrestrial life
Lipid World
Polyphosphates
PAH world hypothesis
Multiple genesis
...and my particular favorite:
Clay theory
A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and adopted as a plausible illustration by several other scientists, including Richard Dawkins. Clay theory postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform — silicate crystals in solution. Complexity in companion molecules developed as a function of selection pressures on types of clay crystal is then exapted to serve the replication of organic molecules independently of their silicate "launch stage".
The Bible says God "spat into the dust" and created man. Spit... dust... hmm... sounds a little like a substance we know as "clay" doesn't it? Wouldn't it be a hoot if The Bible had it absolutely right all along? Our Creator spat in the dust to make the primordial clay in which all life originated.
So, you see... people like ib1 are anti-religious pinheads who simply want to lash out at religious believers because they think it will result in less people having faith in God. It really has nothing to do with science or the origins of life on this planet.
The contradicting theory to intelligent design/creation, is called "Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
Now.... Within the study of Abiogenesis Theory, we have an abundance of sub theories, some contradict one another or cancel each other out, and they all have inherent flaws or unknown tangibles, which can't be confirmed or verified. Here is a list of the possibilities:
The Primordial Soup Theory
The deep sea vent theory
Eigen's hypothesis
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis
"Genes first" models: the RNA world
"Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others
Autocatalysis
Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model
"Primitive" extraterrestrial life
Lipid World
Polyphosphates
PAH world hypothesis
Multiple genesis
...and my particular favorite:
Clay theory
A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and adopted as a plausible illustration by several other scientists, including Richard Dawkins. Clay theory postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform — silicate crystals in solution. Complexity in companion molecules developed as a function of selection pressures on types of clay crystal is then exapted to serve the replication of organic molecules independently of their silicate "launch stage".
The Bible says God "spat into the dust" and created man. Spit... dust... hmm... sounds a little like a substance we know as "clay" doesn't it? Wouldn't it be a hoot if The Bible had it absolutely right all along? Our Creator spat in the dust to make the primordial clay in which all life originated.
So, you see... people like ib1 are anti-religious pinheads who simply want to lash out at religious believers because they think it will result in less people having faith in God. It really has nothing to do with science or the origins of life on this planet.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Sorry Dix, but its not the science side that is concerned with God. Science wants to do what it does, and be left alone. Science doesn't spend its days trying to sell its brand to those who chose to believe otherwise. Science deals with cold, hard facts. Science observes the real, reality.
See the difference?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not really. If you speak with anyone who has any belief in a superior power, they have plenty of 'evidence' to support their beliefs. To them, the "reality" of the existence of this superior power is all around us, in everything we see and all we do. It doesn't require further "proof." It is as absurd to tell them their "god" doesn't exist, as it would be to tell you that your mother doesn't exist, from their perspective.
Science is an inanimate thing, it doesn't "want to be left alone" because it's incapable of having feelings. Science is also incapable of "spending days" since it is inanimate. Do you mean "scientists?" Well, I suspect some scientists just want to be left alone to do their work, but others clearly do not. Some of them want to shove their theories down our throats as if they are factual and proven, when that defies the very premise of Science. You see, science doesn't purport to "prove" things, it continues to ask questions and ponder possibilities. I just thought it was interesting that one of the leading scientific theories of Abiogenesis is somewhat inline with the Holy Scriptures.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Dixie is right, in that its fun to see lefties bash religion. I'm the kind of cold bastard that would like to see them suffor consequences for such sniping, but that's beside the point.
The scientific method can be learned and understood, whether or not the scientist understands how it came to originate. So long as the evolutionary chain continues to operate in the way it has since some point in the distant past, it doesn't really matter whether it came about through anti-reason (God), or anti-reason (the idea that matter cannot create itself).
The scientific method can be learned and understood, whether or not the scientist understands how it came to originate. So long as the evolutionary chain continues to operate in the way it has since some point in the distant past, it doesn't really matter whether it came about through anti-reason (God), or anti-reason (the idea that matter cannot create itself).
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Dixie, just one I'd like to see you post an honest thread.
I stated at least once and I think twice in this thread already that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Neither does intelligent design, for that matter.
By the way: you're retarded. You should be the one watching that NOVA I linked to (I know you hate that liberalish "educational" type stuff, but give it a try).
I stated at least once and I think twice in this thread already that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Neither does intelligent design, for that matter.
By the way: you're retarded. You should be the one watching that NOVA I linked to (I know you hate that liberalish "educational" type stuff, but give it a try).
C
Cancel3
Guest
I have no problem with whatever people believe, as long as they do not expect their beliefs to be used to govern me or teach my children.
ID is fine. If that answers whatever questions you have, then embrace it with all you have.
But expecting ID to be taught in science classes in public schools is ridiculous.
ID is fine. If that answers whatever questions you have, then embrace it with all you have.
But expecting ID to be taught in science classes in public schools is ridiculous.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It's also unconstitutional.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The thing that bugs me about that argument is, why should we refrain from teaching information? I can't speak for everyone, but I am a spiritualist who doesn't necessarily want "Baptist indoctrination" being taught in public schools, but the generic concept of the mere possibility of ID, without "religious" implications, can be taught with regard to origin of life, because it is one of many possibilities out there... and why wouldn't we want our children educated to this fact?
The overblown and exaggerated argument from the left, is rooted in the Atheistic movement, which seeks to destroy anything related to or associated with religious belief... it's an agenda! Liberals would rather have a group of 'extremists' shove their agenda down our kid's throats than to actually educate them on all the information. I staunchly oppose any religious doctrine being taught in school, unless it is in the context of a "religious studies" course, but ID is not based on religion or religious belief, it is based on sound and reasoned logic and is as valid a theory as any other currently being taught. Let me be clear, ID would not be taught and should not be taught in context of... God created Adam and Eve, etc.. That is a religious concept, and has no place in a public school science class. But the possibility that origins of life are the result of an outside intelligence source, is one of many very plausible concepts, and should be, at least taught to the children being educated.
Actually, the censoring of this information, is not much different than saying... We can't teach children Shakespeare because it is filled with vulgar sexual content, and they don't need to know those things, it has no purpose being taught to children as literature. You are essentially making the same argument regarding ID. Since it is associated somewhat with religious beliefs, you feel it is inappropriate material to be taught. I am for children being EDUCATED... meaning, they should be taught as much information as we can squeeze into their little mush-brains! There is very little I object to being taught as a part of the educational process, the more the better!
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Not true! In fact, that's an outright lie. I've seen the documents that prove it. You know the book Pandas and People? That's basically the ID bible. The judge in the Dover case was shown the original draft of that book made before a ruling in 1988 that forbid the teaching of creation in the schools. In that first draft they had used the word "creation" throughout. When the ruling came down, they didn't want to scrap the book so they went back and changed it to "Intelligent design." And they did it poorly because in at least one instance they didn't remove all of it and printed "cintelligent designism." What you see there is the transitional form of creationism evolving directly into intelligent design. How poetic.
Seriously. Watch that NOVA. The idea that ID doesn't have anything to do with religion was COMPLETELY blown out of the water. Even a Bush appointed federal judge thought so.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, ID does indeed deal with origin. It is the theory that intelligence designed life at point of origin, or that intelligence created the condition for the origin. It furthermore adds, that "evolution" and/or "Abiogenesis" is the result of a design by intelligence.
When you consider the billions of "chance" events and conditions, which had to happen in such a critical and precise order and degree, to enable everything regarding life as we know and understand it to work, it is virtually beyond comprehension that some source of intelligence wasn't involved. You really have to suspend disbelief to come to any other conclusion. Not from a "religious" standpoint, but just a pure "physics" standpoint. The good old Paley's Watchmaker" analogy is an excellent example. Let me explain further...
Life is so interdependent and irreversibly connected in so many ways, it is hard to explain how it somehow emerged by happenstance or chance. We have a variety of plants, animals, bacteria, and reptiles, who all seem to depend on each other in a way that precludes the possibility any of them could have existed without the other. So, did all of these things emerge and evolve at the same time? That is a pretty miraculous feat to attribute to randomness. Go back to when it all started, if you will... and try to explain how life forms emerged and branched out, to create the billions of inter-dependent life forms we find on Earth. It's really quite impossible to do, because certain life forms require other life forms to exist, and it would have been impossible for those life forms to ever exist without them. We know that plants don't 'evolve' into cold or warm blooded animals... we know that cold and warm blooded animals would have a difficult time surviving without plants... so again, did it all happen at the same time together? If so, isn't that pretty miraculous to attribute to random chance? It just so happens that a comet hit the Earth and brought all of this stuff which "evolved" itself into a diverse and intricately balanced ecosystem and basis for life? It's just really far fetched to assume this happened by a random roll of the dice, and nothing more. It is much more plausible to think, some source of greater intelligence was at work to some degree, to facilitate what we have now.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I won't deny that there are religious extremists who seek to use ID as a basis to proselytize in schools, just as there are Atheists who seek to use ET and protest ID, for their own agendas. But look... ID doesn't have a thing to do with religion or God... it CAN have, many people believe that, but it doesn't require that. For all we know, the Intelligent Designer was some alien from a distant planet far ahead of our technological understandings, who died millions of years ago. This was just an "experiment" to see if life forms could be created or something... nothing "religiously divine" about it, just aliens messing around with physics and science! The concept of ID simply proposes that SOME form of Intelligence originated life... nothing more. Where you take it from there, is a personal thing, if you want to believe this source of intelligence was a "God" or Supreme Being of some sort, that is a completely different idea, and has nothing to do with the concept of an Intelligent Designer.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It's not really that so much as creationism and biological evolution are mutually exclusive or as Stephen Jay Gould called them NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria). Creationism is perfectly workable as a philosophical construct but it excludes it self from ever being science for a multiplicity of reason. Primary among those is that it does not model natural phenomena.