132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Syamsu
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 01:14 pm
@farmerman,
I have a science question.

Do the CATG elements have some equivalence amongst each other, so that for example you can make a C from the buildingblocks of an A, without having to add or substract any material?

Implying for example that a C is suited to being chosen to be an A or C.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 02:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
Theologians are out of your comfort zone Brandi. But what you described is exactly what they do and have been doing.

None of the scientists you approve of have ever formulated the question of how the human race gets out of the permanent **** it was in and, to some extent, is still in. ' "There must be some way outa here", said the Joker to the Thief " '.

Why would the prophets be so bad tempered if they were not in the ****. Unending. Going to continue forever by the look of things. And the prophets were an intellectual elite. Very few people since, if any, have ever matched the beauty and economy of their prose which was only written for other members of a literary and educated elite who knew the references and allusions to Paganism and other dead loss ideas.

An obvious result of the invention, so called, of the written word is a literary elite. "In the beginning was the word". How scientific is that? Like a geologist might say "in the beginning was the steel trowel". A professional in-joke so to say. Droll humour within a waking nightmare. To keep each others spirits up.

And none of the verifiable data your scientists had was ever so copious as that the theologians had when they spent a few hundred years studying the records they had on their desks in their isolated monastic fortresses from whence they issued, after devising a solution, to convert the world. (Thank **** for that eh?).

So it's really a question of whether or not we got out of the **** to some extent and whether we can get entirely free of it eventually. What do you think? Was it worth the effort and pain in your opinion? Should we betray it now?



Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 02:36 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Theologians are out of your comfort zone Brandi. But what you described is exactly what they do and have been doing....

You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide

1. One example of a case in which theologians made a prediction of an experiment not yet performed in order to confirm or refute a very specific religious hypothesis, then performed the experiment, and either confirmed or refuted it?
2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it?

If they didn't do this, then they are not using the scientific method.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 02:40 pm
spendi's bullshitting. He knows what the scientific method is. He just likes yanking chains.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 02:42 pm
Quote:
Spendius said: the prophets were an intellectual elite. Very few people since, if any, have ever matched the beauty and economy of their prose which was only written for other members of a literary and educated elite

Nah mate, many of the OT prophets were as ordinary as you and me, forget the Charlton Heston sterotype..Smile

For example even Jesus wasn't much to look at -"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (Isaiah 53:2)
And Paul was nothing to write home about -
"For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his appearance is unimpressive, and he speaks poorly" (2 Cor 10:10)
And Moses admitted to being unable to think on his feet-
"O Lord, I have never been eloquent, i'm slow of speech and tongue, send someone else to Pharoah" (Exodus 4:10)
And Jonah was so scared he refused pointblank to be a prophet and jumped on a ship to escape, bad call -
"Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish." (Jonah 1:3)
And young Jeremiah tried to talk his way out of the job -
"Lord i'm no good at speaking, i'm too young and people won't take me seriously" (Jer 1:6)

And the prophets wrote for everybody, not for just some snooty elite-
"The more the words, the less the meaning,and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc 6:11)
Paul said - "I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
"And the common people heard Jesus gladly" (Mark 12:37)
"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13)
Jesus said:- "I thank you Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned,and for revealing them to little children"(Matt 11:25-27)

The snooty priests asked Jesus why he hangs with ordinary people instead of with "important" people like them, and he told them-
"Because you're full of ****!" (Matt 23:27)
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/jesus-another-runin_zpsd1d47484.jpg~original

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean...the prostitutes are entering God's kingdom ahead of you!" (Matt 23:27, Matt 21:31)
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 02:54 pm
@Syamsu,
the four bases ( actually 5 including uracil) are tautomers in that they can exist in several forms. Heres ACTand G
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/Rp0K2JIavYI/AAAAAAAACi4/U9nIwOcYG7k/s400/DNA_base_tautomers.jpg

adenine and cytosine can exist as aminos and iminos (NH2 or NH)
while guanine and thymine exist as an ether base or an alcohol base. (O=, or OH-)
I don't think they readily transform into each other, but they bond at these amino/imino.lactam/lactim sites.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:03 pm
@farmerman,
I always had the idea protein was included, but I'm no chemist by any means.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
"Why would any rational, intelligent person possibly engage someone like Quehoniaomath...or some of his echoes...in a serious discussion?


I suppose the guy who got into Mrs Reagan's confidence with ideas in the paranormal field would provide a reason. Some of Darwin's coterie got into table rapping and voices from beyond.

A billionaire might, bored with the constant dividend cheques, wonder if Q could take it anywhere with a investment partner. A patron.

A mass psychologist might to see what Q correlates with and the frequency of those correlates in the general population.

I'm sure I could think of others if I hadn't become bored.

One might easily imagine a 16th century yokel asking the same question about Shakespeare.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Why even give him the satisfaction of reacting? If we ignore him, eventually he will go.


Give it a rest Brandi-- we are not going to ignore Q. He might be the prophet of what Spengler called "the Second Religiousness".
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:17 pm
@spendius,
how do we get out of here?

it's still their question, isn't it?
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:26 pm
@Syamsu,
Quote:
Implying for example that a C is suited to being chosen to be an A or C.


That would depend on funding and the PR and lobbying on behalf of A and C. So the choice is a result of a sort of football game between two, many actually, rivals. With rules and referees.

0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:27 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
are those the supposed six human characteristics of Jesus that they've been spinning recently
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

spendi's bullshitting. He knows what the scientific method is. He just likes yanking chains.


We all know what spendi spends his time yanking, and no chains are involved.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:44 pm
@Wilso,
Barely on a thread.
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:49 pm
@kiuku,
does anyone tag birds to see if there is more sea, get it more sea mercy...heh.

I would tag every possible animal. Did anyone do that yet?

Brag: I realize that I pretty much stay on point. The question lingers, but I'm the only one to ever stay on that point.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:50 pm
Quote:
Kiuku asked me: are those the supposed six human characteristics of Jesus that they've been spinning recently

What? Where? Who?
All we know is that he was half man, half God, so yeah, sure he had a human side..Smile
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 03:50 pm
@spendius,
Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:
Theologians are out of your comfort zone Brandi. But what you described is exactly what they do and have been doing....

You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide

1. One example of a case in which theologians made a prediction of an experiment not yet performed in order to confirm or refute a very specific religious hypothesis, then performed the experiment, and either confirmed or refuted it?
2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it?

If they didn't do this, then they are not using the scientific method.

Still waiting for you to back up your position.
luismtzzz
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 04:30 pm
@Syamsu,
I will like to extend Fm´s explanation on your question.

Quote:
Do the CATG elements have some equivalence amongst each other, so that for example you can make a C from the buildingblocks of an A, without having to add or substract any material?

Implying for example that a C is suited to being chosen to be an A or C.


Chemicaly the bases are divided in two separate groups according to their chemical families. Adenosine and Guanine are Purines. And Thymine, Uracyl and Cytosine are Pyrimidines. Every organism in the whole world uses the exact same alphabet of bases as lenguage for they genetic code.

There are chemical pathways to provide supplies of an especific type of bases in case of need. They can be constructed de novo, or can be transformed between their own specific family type (salvage pathway). A to G, or G to a. T to U, or C to U. But never A to T, or G to C.

More info:

http://library.med.utah.edu/NetBiochem/pupyr/pp.htm

I is simple and comprehensive. I can help you with any question you have.

0 Replies
 
luismtzzz
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 04:42 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Re: spendius (Post 5706257)
Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:
Theologians are out of your comfort zone Brandi. But what you described is exactly what they do and have been doing....

You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide

1. One example of a case in which theologians made a prediction of an experiment not yet performed in order to confirm or refute a very specific religious hypothesis, then performed the experiment, and either confirmed or refuted it?
2. One example of a case in which theologians abandoned a prior clearly stated religious hypothesis which they had based on an experiment designed to confirm or refute it which ended up refuting it?

If they didn't do this, then they are not using the scientific method.

Still waiting for you to back up your position.


The problem with creatonism is very simple, they take word by word everything that was wrote on a book that is formed by a compilation of stories more than 2000 years old.

What seems more strange is that they use modern communication media to try to defend their ideas. Like this threads online. All that makes their computers work is the consequence of the last 100 years of applying scientifical method to adquire knowledge about the world.

Advances on physics let their cell phones work, advances in medicine provide their medicines, advances in mechanics let their cars run, etc.

But still denie the power of nature exposed by the real understanding of our world.

I think it is hypocrisy. Using a cell phone, surfing the net, driving their cars, taking a antihypertensive drug... and still denying the rest of the marvels that science provide.


spendius
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 04:48 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
You claim that theologians are using the scientific method. Can you provide


Of course I can.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 12:28:32