mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 04:50 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, it is nothing more than another religion. It is a guess at something that cannot be tested, experimented, or anything else. It is a big guess that is sugar coated with "science" The only reason anyone still believes it is because it is the only thing that they can claim as evidence to the nonexistance of God. They want to do whatever they want, and if the "logical thought" b.s of "science" says that there doesn't have to be a God, everyone will jump on board.


In an earlier post http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1275158#1275158
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Welcome to a2k BOTT... as long as you are on here, you must realize that everything you 'believe' will be put up to the utmost scrutiny, you must not take offense, but rather take advice. Frank makes good points, and he is the reason I have taken up a more 'agnostic christianity' Franks quote:"To acknowledge what you do not know - is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't - is a display of weakness. " Sums it up nicely. The only thing that we can honestly take claim in, is our own ignorance.


Considering the recent deluge of dogma spiel posts by thunder, I can only assume that a relapse has occurred. Where is Frank when you need him?
0 Replies
 
takeoffsaftey
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 07:30 pm
Scientists say that all cells have come from a previously living cell. All things come from something before it. After learning this in biology i got VERY confused. Scientists have yet to be able to trace the beginning of live back to one singular organisim, which must in turn be a prokaryote as most organims found in early time were single cellular. How can we have evolved from one tiny individual cell..into so many different species and races. there is no hard evidence in either case just like headofthefield said. I just find this all quite interesting indeed.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 08:18 pm
Quote:
Scientists say that all cells have come from a previously living cell. All things come from something before it. After learning this in biology i got VERY confused. Scientists have yet to be able to trace the beginning of live back to one singular organisim, which must in turn be a prokaryote as most organims found in early time were single cellular. How can we have evolved from one tiny individual cell..into so many different species and races. there is no hard evidence in either case just like headofthefield said. I just find this all quite interesting indeed.


That's not the modern theory. Theory is that the conditions of early earth were so tuned that amino acids could develop and loop into proto-proteins (i forget the real term) which are waht makes a cell. There wasnt ONE cell but probably BILLIONS of cells that burst from MANY different little primordial soups and puddles. tHere's some more and if youre stil wondering I'll try and help. All of these ideas in theory are possible and some have been lab tested (the amino acid looping idea por ejemplo)
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:28 pm
takeoffsaftey wrote:
i got VERY confused.


Evolution is a model. Like any model, we only use it
when it is applicable, predictable, and useful.

It produces results. We are able to USE those results,
without belief or knowledge or dogma or faith.

Single cells that gradually change ... are not very incomprensible.
Single cells that occassionally (one in a billion times) change into two cells
seems quite possible. Almost even likely, from time to time.
Two becomes three, then four, then ... well, the point is that everything changes.

Everything.

Does this require some leap of faith because it is beyond all comprehension?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 09:30 pm
Identical twins are an example of two cells coming from one (and not in the correct and normal way)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:28 pm
El-Diablo wrote:
Quote:
Scientists say that all cells have come from a previously living cell. All things come from something before it. After learning this in biology i got VERY confused. Scientists have yet to be able to trace the beginning of live back to one singular organisim, which must in turn be a prokaryote as most organims found in early time were single cellular. How can we have evolved from one tiny individual cell..into so many different species and races. there is no hard evidence in either case just like headofthefield said. I just find this all quite interesting indeed.


That's not the modern theory. Theory is that the conditions of early earth were so tuned that amino acids could develop and loop into proto-proteins (i forget the real term) which are waht makes a cell. There wasnt ONE cell but probably BILLIONS of cells that burst from MANY different little primordial soups and puddles. tHere's some more and if youre stil wondering I'll try and help. All of these ideas in theory are possible and some have been lab tested (the amino acid looping idea por ejemplo)

I don't think that this is the theory at all. First of all there was no tuning. The environment then was no more hospitable to the generation of life than it is now with one exception. The only difference today is that a spontaneously generated unicellular organism would not be likely to be much competition for the ones already here. And the theory is, indeed, that finally one molecule formed which was capable of reproducing itself, and we are all descendants of that one.
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 11:50 pm
I am simply a molecule.

A few atoms, no more.

<sigh . . . disgrace>

I feel so . . .

incapable of autonomous reproduction and gradually evolving thought processes, building upon patterns and knowledge and behavioral cycles that generations of single-celled organisms have initiated within the vast, experimental and empirically random universe.

Is life . . . truly . . . so cruel? :-( What does it MEAN?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 03:15 am
Don't worry CodeBorg.

You can take heart from the fact that in millions of years, your descendants will be doing all those things you aspire to.

Of course, some of them may be claiming some god just threw the whole universe together in less than a week, but whaddaygunnado?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 03:33 am
anastas wrote:
Example: An atom is in two palces at once.


Erm, I'm no physicist, but I think you meant to say, an elementary particle, not an atom. Atoms cannot be in two places at once. Electrons and quarks can. Otherwise, you're completely right.

CodeBorg wrote:
Is life . . . truly . . . so cruel? What does it MEAN?


Apparently, the meaning of life is 42. Laughing

I see, however, that people are starting to fall into the trap that Darwin wrote about the "Origin of Life" when he actually wrote about the "Origin of Species".

As of yet, we have no real proof of the origin of life, which the theory of evolution doesn't really address unless you make its definition as broad as possible and thus pervert its original meaning.

Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 05:58 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
anastas wrote:
Example: An atom is in two palces at once.


Erm, I'm no physicist, but I think you meant to say, an elementary particle, not an atom. Atoms cannot be in two places at once. Electrons and quarks can. Otherwise, you're completely right.

According to quantum mechanics, every physical system, including atoms, has a probability density wavefunction and is not localized at a spot except when in a position eigenstate, and every physical system can participate in quantum mechanical tunneling. The quantum nature of an object merely becomes less prominent as the mass of the object increases, so that macroscopic objects behave as though localized at all times.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:09 am
eorl wrote:
You can take heart from the fact that in millions of years, your descendants will be doing all those things you aspire to.


Actually, I figured that natural selection would be gone in humans. We now have medicine so the weak can survive.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:20 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
eorl wrote:
You can take heart from the fact that in millions of years, your descendants will be doing all those things you aspire to.


Actually, I figured that natural selection would be gone in humans. We now have medicine so the weak can survive.

Natural selection is still there. We are just selecting for somewhat different things. Intelligence is always a survival trait.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:24 am
Then how come dumb people last so long.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:31 am
Quote:
Actually, I figured that natural selection would be gone in humans. We now have medicine so the weak can survive.


We are still targets for mass extinction (which is evolution a its extreme). A major environmental cataclysm is an odds on certainty and includes
Collision with an object from space

large pyroclastic volcano or a series of shield volcanoes

a return to an ice age

I dont believe that our technology can get us out of any of the above, consequently, since we are of only one species with certain modifications of variety (like sherpas with huge lung capacities) we shall be more than just decimated in a mass extinction event. Like Raup states, "success in avoiding extinction is directly proportional to the number of species that a genus possesses. Like mice have 50 or more species while man has only one
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 06:41 am
Quote:
I see, however, that people are starting to fall into the trap that Darwin wrote about the "Origin of Life" when he actually wrote about the "Origin of Species".

very astute. Its a neat trick employed by certain religionista to try to falsify thetheory by making it account for everything including he beginning of the world. Its usuallynot used in arguments with scientists because the argument gets cut off at the knees. It is a debate trick thats drawn in large public gatherings , like those that are going on right now in Dover Pa. Lotsa prayer meetings and Bible lessons on "origins"
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 07:12 am
farmerman wrote:
... going on right now in Dover Pa. Lotsa prayer meetings and Bible lessons on "origins"


It's interesting to note that legislation will not change any ultimate truth. And yet the Bible bullies are praying hard for legislative support, but to what end? They can't be praying for confirmation of their beliefs because the legislature doesn't have that ability, so they must be praying for the right to spread the word. And since they already have the right to express themselves, they must be asking for the right to speak in a particular venue, or through a particular authority (public schools). It seems to me that their own actions undermine their arguments, clearly demonstrating a religious imperitive underlying their motives.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 07:20 am
In Dover, a group called C.A.R.E.S. (citizens actively reviewing educational strategies) are supporting school board candidates who wish to remove the teaching of intelligent design. I honestly believe that most parents want science to be taught as science and religion to be taught as religion. Hopefully, reason and logic will prevail.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 08:07 am
University of Pennsylvania professors had written an open letter to the Dover school board advising against inserting intelligent design theory into science education. The professors characterized intelligent design theory as a religious view more appropriate for a class on comparative religion.

Those who claim intelligent design is a scientific theory seem to be waging their scientific revolution at the high school level. Did Copernicus or Einstein ever do that?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 08:13 am
wandeljw. Pa has been described as Philly and Pittsburgh, separated by ALABAMA. I only hope that youre right.

rosborne-The prayer meetings and bible studies about "Creation" and ID are to influence the voters of the upcoming schoolboard election. They will lean heavily upon "community standards" when , if an ID majority is elected, the school board mustproove that they are meeting state ed standards . The state ed standards have officially shot down CREATIONISM (but not ID) as a result of our 2001 hearings. Its going to be complicated, The ACLU;s case is going forward no matter what, because that issue has been cast back in OCT 2004.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2005 09:34 am
Why would they teach evolution and not creation if they both are both religions?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 72
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 06:39:55