Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Nor should they get to dictate what is or is not science, which is what you are asking them to do (as long as it suits your opinion)

Psss, your ignorance of Edwrds vAguillard or Kitzmiller v Dover i showing. They all spend tons of time asserting jurisdiction. Im getting kind of tired with your innsistance of things that are just not the way you wish them.

I DIDNT start the Aguillard case, so dont lecture me about why the law is the way it is. I was in the early days of a career in Teaching engineering geology , but since it affected many areas of my career, I learnt about them. SInce you are one of the worldview packers that believes in no-evidence os valid evidence, you should have been also better informed. (especially with the beliefs that you sport)

Im afraid that, were you to fully read about the fraud and cynicism with which the Creation science/IDers went forward, youd be amazed at how they even got their days in court. That the greatness and the problem with this country. If ya got enough clout and money you can almost get away with murder.

Maybe Im just assuming too much for your abilities.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Nor should they get to dictate what is or is not science

It aint early onset. but Id look at your short term memory problem. I just explained prior to your clip, how the law worked in those cases. THEY WERE ADJUDICATING LAW not SCIENCE. Science was only the issue. Like when you steal your neighbors skypes, the law you broke is one of THEFT of SERVICE, not your freedom -of-speech

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Nor should they get to dictate what is or is not science "

It aint early onset. but Id look at your short term memory problem. I just explained prior to your clip, how the law worked in those cases. THEY WERE ADJUDICATING LAW not SCIENCE. Science was only the issue. Like when you steal your neighbors skypes, the law you broke is one of THEFT of SERVICE, not your freedom -of-speech

So you're saying that you were wrong all this time in saying that ID has no basis in science?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

comprehension is not your forte is it

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Me thinks thou dost protest too much...
And giving a straight answer is not your forte

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Jesus foot I know youre not that dumb. The law, covered under the 1st Amendment of the constitution contains the "ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE"
The cases totally revolved about when the establishment clause was violated. ID and Creation Science, being totally religion based , by being enforced in the curricula of Public SChools , BROKE THE LAW . ID and Creation "Science" were merely supposed to be evidence on behalf of the defense. The cases never got into anything more than whether Creation/ID sciences were nothing more than "fan boys" for some religious worldview.

I hope I dont hqve to go over this any times further. But you do conveniently eem to forget these cases wvery few months whenever you bring up your mantra.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And giving a straight answer is not your forte

My answers were totally 100% fact and were delivered straight as an arrow to your head.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

How does anything evolve? It faces a problem and searches for a solution.

That's not how it works at all.

Populations have variation in them. Some individuals may die from heat, or light. Others may die from dryness or saltiness or because a predator can see them better than the other. It can be anything.

When conditions are easy for everyone they all reproduce and pass on their genes with roughly equal frequency. But when conditions change selection takes over and different variations reproduce more than others, and the effect accumulates over time, eventually resulting in a change in the population.

No single individual evolves. No organism needs to even be aware of the process. All any organism needs to do is to go about its natural life and survive long enough to reproduce. Which is exactly why no intelligence or planning or thought is required.

If you are going to object to the theory, you at least owe it to yourself to object to the actual theory rather than some misinterpretation of it.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

As I have told you many times, I'm not interested in defending court cases, the Discovery Institute or anyone else involved in the question.

If you can't talk with me man to man about the subject, I'm not interested.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

If you are going to object to the theory, you at least owe it to yourself to object to the actual theory rather than some misinterpretation of it.

This is a very good point but I'm really trying.

rosborne979 wrote:

No single individual evolves. No organism needs to even be aware of the process. All any organism needs to do is to go about its natural life and survive long enough to reproduce. Which is exactly why no intelligence or planning or thought is required

All this is bunk to me. You're saying because we may not be aware we're evolving that evolution will just happen and we don't have to do anything?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

All any organism needs to do is to go about its natural life and survive long enough to reproduce.

Ok.. would it be fair to say the primary driving force behind evolution is survival? Or do you need to include reproduction in that definition also (even though I thought it was already.?)

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

There is relativity in here somewhere. Water will take the form of any glass you pour it into.

1 Reply

Survival of the fittest refers to species, not individuals. Any individual which survives is, by definition, fit. Reproduction is the key factor. An individual that survives but does not reproduce does not affect the evolution of its species. Those species the individuals of which are best fitted to reproduce in their environment are the fittest species. Reproductive opportunity is the driving force of evolution.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The atoms in crystals are hardware being arranged according to the operating system of the laws of physics. Atoms that form Crystals arrange differently than atoms that don’t naturally form crystals because the algorithm written in the atoms of a crystalline structure are different than the algorithm written in the atoms of a nonrystaline structure.

Sometimes nature needs a crystal algorithm to solve a structural problem, sometimes it needs a more fluid or disorganized algorithm to solve a different structural problem. What is wrong with my reasoning in my interpretation of the evidence?

The problem (of what type of structure was needed) was solved systematically, (which I and and a lot of others believe) always means intelligently.

Why cant I believe, teach, and research that point of view?

Why don’t you explain your understanding of crystallography and the second Law. You always say the question is answered in some source without explaining how the source explains it.

Is my non theistic explanation for intelligent design in my earlier posts legal?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Survival of the fittest refers to species, not individuals. Any individual which survives is, by definition, fit. Reproduction is the key factor. An individual that survives but does not reproduce does not affect the evolution of its species. Those species the individuals of which are best fitted to reproduce in their environment are the fittest species. Reproductive opportunity is the driving force of evolution.

What affects genetic expression and makeup? What are the things that drive genetic change?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

The atoms in crystals are hardware being arranged according to the operating system of the laws of physics.

Does a natural quartz crystal express atomic law?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

Does a natural quartz crystal express atomic law?

I would say yes. If it didn’t it would be breaking the laws of physics. (And probably would not always be a crystal) I would like to hear Farmer’s, Sentanta’s and Rosborne’s opinion on that question.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

What affects genetic expression and makeup? What are the things that drive genetic change?

You really need to understand the other side's position. That can be most succinctly stated as:

An animal (that's us) is merely a delivery mechanism for its genes. You have nothing to do with the process. Your genes control how good you are (mentally and physically) at successfully impregnating (or getting impregnated) and that's the whole game. Nothing else (other than cataclismic extinction events) matters.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What affects genetic expression and makeup? What are the things that drive genetic change?

You really need to understand the other side's position. That can be most succinctly stated as:

An animal (that's us) is merely a delivery mechanism for its genes. You have nothing to do with the process. Your genes control how good you are (mentally and physically) at successfully impregnating (or getting impregnated) and that's the whole game. Nothing else (other than cataclismic extinction events) matters.

That's the point I've been trying to make and no one yet has been able to tell me why a dog is a dog.

2 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

That's the point I've been trying to make and no one yet has been able to tell me why a dog is a dog.

They'll just tell you the dog is just a domesticated wolf. And the wolf came from a gopher-like thing. It came from a blah, blah, bla....
And of course the whale came from a thing that looked like a small deer and so on.
So I think the thing from the movie 'Alien' is not so far fetched.

2 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know