Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by potaetoes the appendix's former function is pretty well understood. it's not a "design flaw" - just an artifact of the evolutionary process. Huh? The other pro-evo guy just said it WAS a flaw, he said hes a scientist too, are you wrong or is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Its been fun, I need to crash. Maybe I can poke more holes in the boring dusty ol' theory more tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky ...and there's no way to reproduce these condtions we assume existed in a lab enviroment either. An amino acid is lightyears away from a cell. It might be a little hard to find a lab that has 510,065,600 square kilometers of surface area to experiment in for a couple billion years. We also don't really know what the exact earth conditions were back then, we can only guess, so any laboratory replications will not be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members potaetoes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Huh? The other pro-evo guy just said it WAS a flaw, he said hes a scientist too, are you wrong or is he? it is a "flaw" of sorts, but the term isn't quite apt, since it implies a certain model of perfection, which doesn't exist. it's more of a consequence, or a result, than a flaw. it fits in with evolutionary theory and biological mechanisms of survivability. that doesn't prove evolution is true or anything, it just means that they have solid, sensible, supportable explanations as to what appendixes are and why we have them. that's all. it doesn't preclude any other explanation, it's just one really good explanation. all i'm asking for is a solid, sensible, supportable explanation from the other side. i'm not trying to disprove ID... in fact i'm asking someone to support it with regards to the appendix. if you can't do that, stop acting like a spaz and let someone more knowledgable than yourself address the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members voodoopower Posted August 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by potaetoes all i'm asking for is a solid, sensible, supportable explanation from the other side. i'm not trying to disprove ID... in fact i'm asking someone to support it with regards to the appendix. if you can't do that, stop acting like a spaz and let someone more knowledgable than yourself address the question. I think we both know it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CliffC8488 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky That's a double edged sword. Evolutionists have the problem of "first life." It's not a problem, it's just another question. Science isn't about preconceived notions. It's simply understanding how things work. Observe, theorize, test, refine. Rinse and repeat. I'm not sure exactly what "first life" is in the ID proponent's rhetoric but ok, yeah eventually you get back to the creation of the universe. What happended "before" that (before in quotes since time didn't exist)? Don't know. Maybe someday we will if we don't blow ourselves up first because others don't share our beliefs. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. But when it doesn't have an answer it isn't too proud to say, "I don't know but I'm trying to find out." Real science has no agenda other than gaining knowledge. Many people feel that science is out to disprove the existance of god. It isn't. We're simply just trying to explain things for the benefit of all. Knowledge is good. It improves our lives. It fosters equality and breaks down barriers. Ignorance breeds superstition and hatred. CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nutter Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Huh? The other pro-evo guy just said it WAS a flaw, he said hes a scientist too, are you wrong or is he?I never said it was a flaw, I said there are plenty of design flaws in the human body in general.I'll just let everyone loose on this one big flaw. The human skeleton. ...and there's no way to reproduce these condtions we assume existed in a lab enviroment either.Actually...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html If it can be done in a primitive setup in such a short amount of time... Because if we dont understand it, it's a flaw.Now that's a pretty ignorant comment that undermines all your credibility. Do you hear me bashing creationism? Not once. For some reason you seem to believe creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. Are you an arts student? Is it possible for something to be created and then evolve of it's own accord? Good god no! That's like sooooo impossible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Realm Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by voodoopower Really all I wanted to see was what the people in this forum think. See thats your problem right there, isn't there enough evidence to the contrary that even occurs here. I've been watching the Colbert report to often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AgentOrange Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by Nutter I never said it was a flaw, I said there are plenty of design flaws in the human body in general. I'll just let everyone loose on this one big flaw. The human skeleton. Actually... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html If it can be done in a primitive setup in such a short amount of time... Now that's a pretty ignorant comment that undermines all your credibility. Do you hear me bashing creationism? Not once. For some reason you seem to believe creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. Are you an arts student? Is it possible for something to be created and then evolve of it's own accord? Good god no! That's like sooooo impossible! Im glad someone posted the Miller Experiment, and before the creationists jump in and say how its lightyears away from forming life from chemicals, let me just explain why it was so groundbreaking. The Miller experiment was an attempt, in the 1960s, to see if it was possible to recreate the conditions of earth billions of years ago and see if anything would actually happen of its own accord. Although there are problems with the miller experiment, it is still ground breaking because it demonstrated that chemical compounds, under the conditions we was replicating, will form into more complex compounds. These more complex compounds were in the form of Adenine one of the four nitrongenous bases of DNA (one of those G T A C letters you see mapping genomes) as well as components of ATP, without which, there would be no life. Yes, its hard to replicate those early conditions rigourously, since unless you wait billions of years and recreate them exactly over vast spaces, you arent going to satisfy the creationists. But that wasnt the point of the experiment, it did show for the first time that organic compounds would form spontaneously under those conditions, which is very exciting. Now of course this isnt proof, but there is no such thing as proof in science, but it is a basis for further research and a foundation for theory. Of course, electricity is still a theory, and it powers your amplifiers, and despite what the church did to him, Galileo had been telling the world the earth revolved around the sun years before it was possible to see with our own eyes.James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AgentOrange Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by CliffC8488 It's not a problem, it's just another question. Science isn't about preconceived notions. It's simply understanding how things work. Observe, theorize, test, refine. Rinse and repeat.I'm not sure exactly what "first life" is in the ID proponent's rhetoric but ok, yeah eventually you get back to the creation of the universe. What happended "before" that (before in quotes since time didn't exist)? Don't know. Maybe someday we will if we don't blow ourselves up first because others don't share our beliefs.Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. But when it doesn't have an answer it isn't too proud to say, "I don't know but I'm trying to find out." Real science has no agenda other than gaining knowledge. Many people feel that science is out to disprove the existance of god. It isn't. We're simply just trying to explain things for the benefit of all. Knowledge is good. It improves our lives. It fosters equality and breaks down barriers. Ignorance breeds superstition and hatred.CC I very rarely do this, but +1 infact .... +2 James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Realm Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky a cell is so incredibly complex, how does a billion of them just form? Good question.The answer is that other organisms were integrated that make up the cells components (ie, mitochondria was it's own organism at one time) They originally would have a symbiotic relationship and were integrated over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AgentOrange Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky I hope you could figure out I meant by the context. Ok, you edited your post after i quoted it to abiogenesis, which is not a term I really used during my degree too often. The miller experiment is the most famous one where organic chemicals were formed during the experiment, but there have been subsequent studies. Youre right, I have not yet seen the spontaneous generation of life from chemicals, but the argument that it is an impossibility becuase it hasnt been observed is one of ignorance. Science doesnt profess to have all the answers, it is simply trying to find out how things work and has a lot of work to do in the future even though we are far from having a complete picture yet, you cant blame scientists from discussing the possibilities of their work. It is this kind of debate than stimulates new ideas! Nothing in science is set in stone either, it is not a religion, if things are found to be incorrect by subsequent investigation then theories are modified. This is why books undergo many revisions.Im curious, do you and the other proponents of ID believe the earth is 6,000 years old too?James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members voodoopower Posted August 14, 2006 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by AgentOrange Im curious, do you and the other proponents of ID believe the earth is 6,000 years old too?James Yeah they sure do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DADGADammit Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Moniker Lewinsky = troll its pretty sad that there isn't a single person here who is for creationism or ID that can respond rationally and represent the argument for creationism with credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members book_of_lies777 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 and the answer is - (dramatic pause) right here:http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeathMonkey Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by DeathMonkey OK, so, you take it as fact that Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, and turned water into wine, but you don't have faith in the fossil record or the clear evolution and mutation of, say, flu germs from season to season??? You people take the {censored}ing cake, I swear. Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Who was your question directed to? You, dumbass. Nice sidestep. Among the things Christians and other "ID" retards "take on faith" - Noah put 2 of every species - including 1.4 million species of insects - on a boat smaller than the QEII. Adam and Eve created 6 billion people in only 5000 years. Moses parted the Red Sea. Some dude marched around Jericho for three days and the walls fell down by themselves. Jesus was a miracle caterer - see: the loaves and the fishes. Lazarus was raised from the dead. But easily replicated physical laws "don't prove anything". Welcome to the Dark Ages. Seriously, kill yourselves, you're taking up my air. I have nothing against religious interpretation per se, but when you parse such hairs and step into the deductive reasoning arena, you are going to lose. Period. Religion is by it's nature "supernatural", not natural. Science is the description of natural laws. The two are seperate, and need to be. As soon as you start trying to explain or justify religion as science, you lose. It's just {censored}ing stupid, as stupid as trying to explain deep spiritual crisises with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by DeathMonkey You, dumbass. Nice sidestep. Among the things Christians and other "ID" retards "take on faith" - but so do evolutionists. As a matter of fact, I'm so unqualified to have an opinion I shouldnt even be on this thread... But I'll call you names to make up for that...Well, I agree. BTW- never claimed to be a creationist you {censored}ing dumbass. I'll address the flaws posted by the rest of the gang bang after work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by voodoopower Maybe but thats an entirely seperate poll. Not true, it's just evidence that evolution still has some work to do on some segments of the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members shreder75 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 I think some have yet to evolve actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by shreder75 I think some have yet to evolve actually You're all hairless apes to me. However, some of your females are ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Not all scientists who disagree with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Here is an article by the Panspermists that touches on the problem of information:http://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm and the problem of increasing organisation:http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm Big smiles, Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members shreder75 Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by thenakedarab You're all hairless apes to me. However, some of your females are ok. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members paulintheuk Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 I'm amazed that anyone DOESN'T believe that we have evolved, it seems like such simple premise. If you don't believe then I also assume you don't like to take long sea journeys in case you sail over the edge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 Originally posted by MonikerLewinsky Well, I agree. BTW- never claimed to be a creationist you {censored}ing dumbass. I'll address the flaws posted by the rest of the gang bang after work. where do you work??? shoveling coal in HELL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 14, 2006 Members Share Posted August 14, 2006 In case it hasn't been posted yet:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.