Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[grizzaholic]

WHy aren't we discussing aliens?

I worship cthulhu, and I would advise the rest of you to do the same.

My brother.

[D1B]

The proofs that the Christian designer is a complete **** up are many and sound.

Yes.

He created you, for example.

Practically my entire vocational life has been spent caring for the poorest of the poor. Doing Jesus' work.

You are a parasite lawyer who profits from the financial misfortunes of others.

Truth.

[SeattleGriz]

YT is out of line.

to jj-oh please. To griz- you don't even understand what junk DNA is, as you have displayed over anf over again. ID is not science. It's claims about the "flaws" of evolution don't disprove evolution, but rather point out what biologists already know in terms of certain aspects of the theory. It's god of the gaps at its best.

Once again winning the debate in your own mind.

[youngterrier]

to jj-oh please. To griz- you don't even understand what junk DNA is, as you have displayed over anf over again. ID is not science. It's claims about the "flaws" of evolution don't disprove evolution, but rather point out what biologists already know in terms of certain aspects of the theory. It's god of the gaps at its best.

Once again winning the debate in your own mind.

The debate is long over. It doesn't matter if it is I who delivers the message or not, there' s a reason no credible scientist is an IDer. You haven't displayed any understanding of evolution at all, and I have constantly rebutted your claims. The fact that you think a protein of 40 or so parts came together in one day is proof of that.

[D1B]

Once again winning the debate in your own mind.

The debate is long over. It doesn't matter if it is I who delivers the message or not, there' s a reason no credible scientist is an IDer. You haven't displayed any understanding of evolution at all, and I have constantly rebutted your claims. The fact that you think a protein of 40 or so parts came together in one day is proof of that.

[Chizzang]

Yikes..
Believing something is not an accomplishment.
In this country we enforce the idea that beliefs are something to be proud of
But they’re really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because “strength of belief” is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself.

As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you’ve made it a part of your ego and it has become ideological. When I listen to any “die-hard” conservative or liberal talk about their deepest beliefs (at that moment) I am listening to somebody who will never hear what I say on any matter that matters to them — unless I happen to believe the same as them. Sure, it's gratifying to speak forcefully like we "Know Something" it is even more gratifying to be agreed with, and this high, this ego rush is what die-hard believers are chasing.

Wherever there is a belief, there is a closed door.

Evolution is observable Science, just like gravity... But it's been Hi-jacked by Atheists who are trying to use it like a hammer to beat down those with faith.
Creationism is an Ideological Belief system (not Science) and it is being used as defense against misguided Atheists who are butchering Evolution as they attempt to pummel the Religiously Faithful

I wish Atheists would fight their own battle and leave Evolution out of it...
Evolution does not in any way circumvent Faith or God
and: The belief in God does not eliminate Evolution

To some: God = Evolution (one in the same)
Creationism is an ideological belief system

Not a productive argument...
Again: Beliefs are nothing to be "Proud of" they are not an accomplishment
Typically they indicate a closed door

Just my 2 cents

[kalm]

Yikes..
Believing something is not an accomplishment.
In this country we enforce the idea that beliefs are something to be proud of
But they’re really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because “strength of belief” is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself.

As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you’ve made it a part of your ego and it has become ideological. When I listen to any “die-hard” conservative or liberal talk about their deepest beliefs (at that moment) I am listening to somebody who will never hear what I say on any matter that matters to them — unless I happen to believe the same as them. Sure, it's gratifying to speak forcefully like we "Know Something" it is even more gratifying to be agreed with, and this high, this ego rush is what die-hard believers are chasing.

Wherever there is a belief, there is a closed door.

Evolution is observable Science, just like gravity... But it's been Hi-jacked by Atheists who are trying to use it like a hammer to beat down those with faith.
Creationism is an Ideological Belief system (not Science) and it is being used as defense against misguided Atheists who are butchering Evolution as they attempt to pummel the Religiously Faithful

I wish Atheists would fight their own battle and leave Evolution out of it...
Evolution does not in any way circumvent Faith or God
and: The belief in God does not eliminate Evolution

To some: God = Evolution (one in the same)
Creationism is an ideological belief system

Not a productive argument...
Again: Beliefs are nothing to be "Proud of" they are not an accomplishment
Typically they indicate a closed door

Just my 2 cents

I believe you might be on to something.

[D1B]

Yikes..
Believing something is not an accomplishment.
In this country we enforce the idea that beliefs are something to be proud of
But they’re really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because “strength of belief” is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself.

As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you’ve made it a part of your ego and it has become ideological. When I listen to any “die-hard” conservative or liberal talk about their deepest beliefs (at that moment) I am listening to somebody who will never hear what I say on any matter that matters to them — unless I happen to believe the same as them. Sure, it's gratifying to speak forcefully like we "Know Something" it is even more gratifying to be agreed with, and this high, this ego rush is what die-hard believers are chasing.

Wherever there is a belief, there is a closed door.

Evolution is observable Science, just like gravity... But it's been Hi-jacked by Atheists who are trying to use it like a hammer to beat down those with faith.
Creationism is an Ideological Belief system (not Science) and it is being used as defense against misguided Atheists who are butchering Evolution as they attempt to pummel the Religiously Faithful

I wish Atheists would fight their own battle and leave Evolution out of it...
Evolution does not in any way circumvent Faith or God
and: The belief in God does not eliminate Evolution

To some: God = Evolution (one in the same)
Creationism is an ideological belief system

Not a productive argument...
Again: Beliefs are nothing to be "Proud of" they are not an accomplishment
Typically they indicate a closed door

Just my 2 cents

I believe you might be on to something.

Evolution doesn't negate the concept of a generic god or creator.

Evolution does cast doubt on many of the myths and fairy tales that form the foundation of billions of people's conception of god or god's personality. These myths sustain organized religion (closed doors), which is the ultimate enemy of atheists and those who need faith.

Atheists don't need evolution to circumvent belief in god. They do employ it in battles to keep utter bullshit like creationism out of science curriculums in public schools - for the benefit of everyone.

[youngterrier]

Yikes..
Believing something is not an accomplishment.
In this country we enforce the idea that beliefs are something to be proud of
But they’re really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because “strength of belief” is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself.

As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you’ve made it a part of your ego and it has become ideological. When I listen to any “die-hard” conservative or liberal talk about their deepest beliefs (at that moment) I am listening to somebody who will never hear what I say on any matter that matters to them — unless I happen to believe the same as them. Sure, it's gratifying to speak forcefully like we "Know Something" it is even more gratifying to be agreed with, and this high, this ego rush is what die-hard believers are chasing.

Wherever there is a belief, there is a closed door.

Evolution is observable Science, just like gravity... But it's been Hi-jacked by Atheists who are trying to use it like a hammer to beat down those with faith.
Creationism is an Ideological Belief system (not Science) and it is being used as defense against misguided Atheists who are butchering Evolution as they attempt to pummel the Religiously Faithful

I wish Atheists would fight their own battle and leave Evolution out of it...
Evolution does not in any way circumvent Faith or God
and: The belief in God does not eliminate Evolution

To some: God = Evolution (one in the same)
Creationism is an ideological belief system

Not a productive argument...
Again: Beliefs are nothing to be "Proud of" they are not an accomplishment
Typically they indicate a closed door

Just my 2 cents

The beliefs in evolution and of God are not mutually exclusive. Now, the belief in fundamentalism and science? Probably. The belief in religion and science? one could make the philosophical case, but that's another philosophical discussion for another time.

As for me, I don't really care what you believe in. Evolution is a process that does NOT need a designer, tinkerer, etc and I think that fact is more evident the more you study evolution and the more you look at things broadly. With that being said, that doesn't disprove the existence of God, but at the same time that's not the discussion we are having here.

You can believe that God's guiding evolution, again, I don't care, but to me that's the equivalent of saying God is holding the earth in orbit. Science explains that better, but you could put as many cherries on top as you want for your own satisfaction. You can look at it that way from a religious standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. So don't put that in my schools

What gets me all bent out of shape is the ID crowd that promotes pseudoscience, of which their claims have NO EVIDENCE to back them and have been debunked over and over again. They take advantage of the public at large being for the most part ignorant about complex things such as microbiology, etc, and it's easier to fabricate a controversy with public consent.

I get so fired up about it because statistically speaking, if we don't stand up for facts and true science, we will vastly retard our education system. A pew research poll a few years back showed that only about 12% of Americans thought that evolution should be taught alone in schools, while about 30 or so percent thought creationism, NOT intelligent design but creationism, should be taught alone in schools.

Difference of opinion may be fine and dandy, but when it's a matter of fact and falsehood, I think we should be more passionate in the defense of fact. It goes without saying that a more educated populace is a safer one without the need for laws to keep them that way, but at the same time understanding science could literally mean the difference between life and death. I need not remind anyone the hazard of the millions of people who don't get vaccinated for certain diseases and the danger (though small for now) they are to themselves and others.

So am I out of line for being outraged at Seagrizz's and the ID crowd's BS? I don't think so. Science, particularly biology, is a matter of life and death, and it is one thing to be ignorant about it, but is completely different to promote falsehood over fact and treat it as equal. Spreading falsehood, in this case, can cost lives. Just look at the many people who refuse healthcare in favor of prayer. It's worse when they do that to their children.

If you consider that motivation "out of line" than I guess I am "out of line," and I will gladly continue to be "out of line" until this madness ceases to be a public "controversy"

[JoltinJoe]

So am I out of line for being outraged at Seagrizz's and the ID crowd's BS? I don't think so. Science, particularly biology, is a matter of life and death, and it is one thing to be ignorant about it, but is completely different to promote falsehood over fact and treat it as equal. Spreading falsehood, in this case, can cost lives. Just look at the many people who refuse healthcare in favor of prayer. It's worse when they do that to their children.

If you consider that motivation "out of line" than I guess I am "out of line," and I will gladly continue to be "out of line" until this madness ceases to be a public "controversy"

Your name calling is out of line. Moreover, it discredits you. It makes you sound like D1B and he has about zero respect around these parts. You could have made all your points without calling anyone an "idiot."

[D1B]

So am I out of line for being outraged at Seagrizz's and the ID crowd's BS? I don't think so. Science, particularly biology, is a matter of life and death, and it is one thing to be ignorant about it, but is completely different to promote falsehood over fact and treat it as equal. Spreading falsehood, in this case, can cost lives. Just look at the many people who refuse healthcare in favor of prayer. It's worse when they do that to their children.

If you consider that motivation "out of line" than I guess I am "out of line," and I will gladly continue to be "out of line" until this madness ceases to be a public "controversy"

Your name calling is out of line. Moreover, it discredits you. It makes you sound like D1B and he has about zero respect around these parts. You could have made all your points without calling anyone an "idiot."

You name call just as much as anyone. You're also a pompous know-it-all who thinks everyone is on your side. You're a joke here. Those who aint laughing at you, feel sorry for you.

[youngterrier]

So am I out of line for being outraged at Seagrizz's and the ID crowd's BS? I don't think so. Science, particularly biology, is a matter of life and death, and it is one thing to be ignorant about it, but is completely different to promote falsehood over fact and treat it as equal. Spreading falsehood, in this case, can cost lives. Just look at the many people who refuse healthcare in favor of prayer. It's worse when they do that to their children.

If you consider that motivation "out of line" than I guess I am "out of line," and I will gladly continue to be "out of line" until this madness ceases to be a public "controversy"

Your name calling is out of line. Moreover, it discredits you. It makes you sound like D1B and he has about zero respect around these parts. You could have made all your points without calling anyone an "idiot."

I tried being polite to Grizz before, this is something like the 3rd or 4th time we've discussed evolution. I've tried nice, I've referred him to reading material and videos, and instead of watching them and adapting his arguments to new facts presented (not just the ones I've presented myself) he continues to spew the same shit over and over again. He's beyond reasoning.

If someone was a holocaust denier, and you referred them to several books, videos, eye-witness accounts, pictures, etc etc etc and they refused to watch them, while continuing to spew their nonsense, I think one would be more than justified in calling them an idiot. I know the analogy may be a little edgy for some people, but when we're talking about facts, they're pretty concrete.

I've said all I can say, and there is no sense in arguing with him, so I might as well let everyone who reads his arguments that he has no understanding of evolution and he continues to speak......that's an idiot thing to do if there ever was one

[JoltinJoe]

If someone was a holocaust denier, and you referred them to several books, videos, eye-witness accounts, pictures, etc etc etc and they refused to watch them, while continuing to spew their nonsense, I think one would be more than justified in calling them an idiot. I know the analogy may be a little edgy for some people, but when we're talking about facts, they're pretty concrete.

I've said all I can say, and there is no sense in arguing with him, so I might as well let everyone who reads his arguments that he has no understanding of evolution and he continues to speak......that's an idiot thing to do if there ever was one

A Holocaust denier is usually motivated by hate, so the comparison doesn't hold. What do you gain by calling names?

[JoltinJoe]

Your name calling is out of line. Moreover, it discredits you. It makes you sound like D1B and he has about zero respect around these parts. You could have made all your points without calling anyone an "idiot."

You name call just as much as anyone. You're also a pompous know-it-all who thinks everyone is on your side. You're a joke here. Those who aint laughing at you, feel sorry for you.

What a D1m Bulb you are.

[Chizzang]

The beliefs in evolution and of God are not mutually exclusive. Now, the belief in fundamentalism and science? Probably. The belief in religion and science? one could make the philosophical case, but that's another philosophical discussion for another time.

As for me, I don't really care what you believe in. Evolution is a process that does NOT need a designer, tinkerer, etc and I think that fact is more evident the more you study evolution and the more you look at things broadly. With that being said, that doesn't disprove the existence of God, but at the same time that's not the discussion we are having here.

You can believe that God's guiding evolution, again, I don't care, but to me that's the equivalent of saying God is holding the earth in orbit. Science explains that better, but you could put as many cherries on top as you want for your own satisfaction. You can look at it that way from a religious standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. So don't put that in my schools

What gets me all bent out of shape is the ID crowd that promotes pseudoscience, of which their claims have NO EVIDENCE to back them and have been debunked over and over again. They take advantage of the public at large being for the most part ignorant about complex things such as microbiology, etc, and it's easier to fabricate a controversy with public consent.

I get so fired up about it because statistically speaking, if we don't stand up for facts and true science, we will vastly retard our education system. A pew research poll a few years back showed that only about 12% of Americans thought that evolution should be taught alone in schools, while about 30 or so percent thought creationism, NOT intelligent design but creationism, should be taught alone in schools.

Difference of opinion may be fine and dandy, but when it's a matter of fact and falsehood, I think we should be more passionate in the defense of fact. It goes without saying that a more educated populace is a safer one without the need for laws to keep them that way, but at the same time understanding science could literally mean the difference between life and death. I need not remind anyone the hazard of the millions of people who don't get vaccinated for certain diseases and the danger (though small for now) they are to themselves and others.

So am I out of line for being outraged at Seagrizz's and the ID crowd's BS? I don't think so. Science, particularly biology, is a matter of life and death, and it is one thing to be ignorant about it, but is completely different to promote falsehood over fact and treat it as equal. Spreading falsehood, in this case, can cost lives. Just look at the many people who refuse healthcare in favor of prayer. It's worse when they do that to their children.

If you consider that motivation "out of line" than I guess I am "out of line," and I will gladly continue to be "out of line" until this madness ceases to be a public "controversy"

Excellent reply...
I think you misunderstood the goal of my post (a little)
You are well informed but easily instigated and provoked - as I said - Evolution is observable Science as observable as gravity etc. etc. there need be no further discussion about it. Entertaining SeattleGriz provocations serves only to legitimize his Intelligent Design ideas

Intelligent Design is "an idea" sponsored by an Ideology
Evolution is (again) observable Science

The argument is over...
One can be taught in Science Class the other can be Taught in Philosophy class I guess

Seattle Griz already admitted he didn't understand Evolution (admitting he wasn't a scientists) and not capable of grasping the Hard Science required to sustain a legitimate argument either for I.D. or against Evolution

Case Closed 99.99 percent of the worlds most educated and well researched (top) scientists understand Evolution
Thus completely closing the argument

What we're left with is a conversation about God not Evolution
And the conversation about god can actually be more interesting because it has no answers

[youngterrier]

If someone was a holocaust denier, and you referred them to several books, videos, eye-witness accounts, pictures, etc etc etc and they refused to watch them, while continuing to spew their nonsense, I think one would be more than justified in calling them an idiot. I know the analogy may be a little edgy for some people, but when we're talking about facts, they're pretty concrete.

I've said all I can say, and there is no sense in arguing with him, so I might as well let everyone who reads his arguments that he has no understanding of evolution and he continues to speak......that's an idiot thing to do if there ever was one

A Holocaust denier is usually motivated by hate, so the comparison doesn't hold. What do you gain by calling names?

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

[D1B]

A Holocaust denier is usually motivated by hate, so the comparison doesn't hold. What do you gain by calling names?

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

YT. SG is trolling.

From Urbandictionary.com

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as the religious, this can result in hilarity.

[D1B]

You name call just as much as anyone. You're also a pompous know-it-all who thinks everyone is on your side. You're a joke here. Those who aint laughing at you, feel sorry for you.

What a D1m Bulb you are.

Yeah, and you're a genius.



D1B with a stringer full of Joltin Joes

[SeattleGriz]

My whole reason for posting about ID and evolution is because I have enough science to be dangerous to myself. I have always admitted that and have always asked anyone with the big degree (JMUDJ) to help keep me honest. If I operate at the 500 foot level, JMUDJ operates at the 1 foot. He has always been polite when he has stumped me as to not rub my nose in it. I have always invited discussion.

For example. YT and I recently argued over the formation of a flagella. He thinks it can be assembled one protein at a time because that is what the consensus says. Me, I see how astronomically improbable it is for 40 proteins to not only mutate at the correct single or multiple base/s out of thousands, then deal with the interactions (hydrophobic bonding, van der Waals forces, salt bridges and steric hindrance), only to then have to assemble properly and be useful at the same time - for natural selection should weed out anything that is not beneficial. Granted, you get the right mutation, everything else falls in line, but to do it 40 times while hoping natural selection doesn't wipe out your progress has a huge improbability.

By the way YT, check out both horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Those are what I was getting at in regards to "abosorbing a whole bluprint" and thus being able to make a flagella in one shot.

[SeattleGriz]

YT. SG is trolling.

From Urbandictionary.com

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as the religious, this can result in hilarity.

I am not trolling YT. I honestly would not waste his time. I do like to discuss this, but just haven't figured out the common language we need to speak.

As for your comment, I sure hope you added that last part, for all of your religious posting of particular items. If you did, that was a good one, I will admit.

[Chizzang]

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

Now that post ^ comes from the position of knowledge and power...
Exactly the point - Nobody who actually matters in Science has any issue with Evolution
All that is left is for Ideological Belief systems (such as Intelligent Design) to attempt to insert themselves in a debate that has not existed in a meaningful way in almost 125 years. It's like re-opening a case that's been closed for over a century and all the evidence is still sitting in the courtroom.

Nobody argues that penicillin works because of Gods intervention
We know exactly why it works - it's observable science
But the argument was a sincere debate (in the 1920's) that antibacterial agents we're interfering with Gods plan...
or something like that

But nobody argues that sincerely today
we all know better and the only people arguing about evolution are A) Preying on the uneducated B) Religiously Fearful to show that the Crazy Liberal Scientists are scheming to destroy all that is Holy - or something like that

When really the conversation should go something more like: How do I adjust my understanding of what God is based on what we know about the world and the universe..

You see: I want God in my life, I can't explain why (but I do) so I have to re-adjust my views to compensate for that "want" so that it is consistent with today's reality. There are many Christians who are really terrified to do that and I don't know why...

Galileo Did it 450 years ago
He adjusted his "god" needs to suit the newest information about the universe and the world
I wish Everybody who has a "God Need" would do that

[youngterrier]

My whole reason for posting about ID and evolution is because I have enough science to be dangerous to myself. I have always admitted that and have always asked anyone with the big degree (JMUDJ) to help keep me honest. If I operate at the 500 foot level, JMUDJ operates at the 1 foot. He has always been polite when he has stumped me as to not rub my nose in it. I have always invited discussion.

For example. YT and I recently argued over the formation of a flagella. He thinks it can be assembled one protein at a time because that is what the consensus says. Me, I see how astronomically improbable it is for 40 proteins to not only mutate at the correct single or multiple base/s out of thousands, then deal with the interactions (hydrophobic bonding, van der Waals forces, salt bridges and steric hindrance), only to then have to assemble properly and be useful at the same time - for natural selection should weed out anything that is not beneficial. Granted, you get the right mutation, everything else falls in line, but to do it 40 times while hoping natural selection doesn't wipe out your progress has a huge improbability.

By the way YT, check out both horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Those are what I was getting at in regards to "abosorbing a whole bluprint" and thus being able to make a flagella in one shot.

I'm sorry, but your second paragraph demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

It doesn't assemble one at a time because that it is the consensus, it does that because it is the only way at which that could. The function of the protein evolves with the cell itself. Like the cell, the protein didn't just pop up one day, it grew from simplicity to complexity over a period of time. The flagellum was not 40 proteins at its beginning, but as it became necessity to carry out functions in a certain way in the cell, it necessarily had to adapt to fulfill those functions, lest the cell and the protein would die.

You have understand that the complexity doesn't pop out of nowhere and randomly assemble. Say we have 40 numbers in a box, and to "survive" we need to pick one number at a time, to where it comes in numerical order. The numbers will serve as "genes. "The selection of numbers will serve as the mutations (mutations are not as random as the layman terms does so), and the removal of numbers that are not in numerical order serves as natural selection. Each selection is the equivalent of a generation.

In this case, one would think that selection of numbers in the right order all at once, while still random, would be something like 40! (exclamation point is for permutation, like 40x39x38, etc). This is a common misconception about evolution, and why it is imperative that it happens over a long period of time, and that the randomness is cumulative and not just random.

When we select numbers, only the one's that are beneficial to their environment will survive (which in this case means it will only be one mutation that benefits/is compatible with the environment). It's extremely improbably that they would all come together at once, as stated before, but to get the first number right, we have a 1 in 40 chance. That may seem "slightly" improbable, but that's not a big deal when you have pretty much all of the time in the world, and you only have to do it step by step.

The key is that natural selection WILL NOT wipe out the genes that work (as long as the species survives), for instance, after generation 1, no matter what we select, the number 1 will not be wiped from the gene pool unless we wipe out the whole species (which would be due to a radical change in the environment). Seeing as the number 1 is pretty much set in stone, we are free to mutate until we find a mutation that is beneficial.

In other words, when we're drawing these numbers, we draw until we get the number that fits in the sequence. When we draw the number that doesn't fit in the sequence, we don't put all the numbers back, we just put the number that doesn't work back (natural selection) and draw until we find the right number. As long as there isn't a radical change in the environment, species are free to breed and mutation will tend to lean in the direction of making animals more adapt to their environment, albeit over a very long time. On the microscopic level, with cells, I'm fairly certain that there aren't predators, etc that would effect proteins in the same way and the environment is different. With proteins, the same concept applies except the mutations that don't work simply are relinquished, while the adaptions that do work are retained and accumulate.

What we have to remember is that all of these cell processes and their efficiency, correlated with the cell and its organelles evolved alongside each other.

I don't see how endosymbiosis and horizontal gene transfer would result in the spontaneous creation of a new bacteria, as that would still be extremely improbable and such a mutation would be extremely improbable especially as you're banking on it happening with a pretty old cell. It would be like my son growing a third arm. That's quite the radical mutation and it somewhat betrays the gradual nature of evolution.

That last part I'm not 100% sure about as I'm not a biologist, but that is my best guess, and I'm pretty sure JMUDJ may back me up on that

[youngterrier]

That last post makes me feel smart.....you may not like metaphors, but they are pretty accurate when describing evolutionary processes.

[JoltinJoe]

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

Hey, your knowledge of evolutionary science is impressive. You are among the most accomplished parties on this board on that subject. I enjoy reading your posts, especially because I learn from them.

And I said before, ID is not science, most notably because its essential thesis -- that evolution is the intentional product of an intelligent designer -- cannot be tested by scientific experiment or observation.

On the other hand, the contention that evolution is not the product of an intelligent designer is as equally incapable of being tested by the scientific method.

For these reasons, I don't think ID is appropriately included within a science curriculum. As I said earlier, ID is a philosophical and theological issue and actually ties into centuries of philosophical tradition discussing the nature and manifestations of a God.

It's unfortunate that scientists tend to be so narrowly educated in our society that they often overlook philosophy and theology. Even Stephen Hawking claims that, because the universe (or multi-verses), and its laws, can operate independently of a creator, that implies that they do operate independently of a creator. That's a false assumption.

Take Cleets; a brilliant free-thinking guy, and yet he feels the need for a God. That seems to hold true for most of mankind. Where does that need come from? I certainly think its absurd to say it comes from some delusion, because you are essentially then claiming there is a mass delusion of man -- a contention which is irrational, because man is the most rational of all beings here on earth. To ignore this question, as so many men of science do intentionally or unintentionally, is in itself irrational.

The contention of many is that the advances of science would eventually negate the question of God, but that has not proven true, because here we are in the 21st century, and God is still very much a part of the human experience. God remains, because science, for all its beauty, cannot tell us "why." And we need to know why. Knowing how is not enough for us. Without God, there is no why, and at some point you have to say there must be a why, so there must be a God; or,

The alternative is that our existence has no why, and that the existentialists were right, and our existence is absurd. That is why I admire the existentialists -- because at least they freely admitted the consequences of their lack of belief. In contrast, we have modern secular humanists who say there is no God, but then try to find meaning to our existence. That lacks reason, because if there is no over-arching objective source for our existence, then there is no over-arching meaning for our existence -- other than we are the most evolved of earth's creatures.

There is a great scene in The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan and Alyosha have this remarkable discussion. Alyosha declares that Ivan (a great intellectual) is an atheist, but Ivan responds that he accepts the existence of God, essentially because there is no alternative for a creature who can only perceive three dimensions (he then goes on to explain why he has issues with the nature of God). And I think that is important to recall. No matter how advanced you become in science, understand that it is not rational to draw ultimate conclusions about God based on what can be tangibly experienced through our senses. What is rational is to acknowledge that we can experience (and sense) a part of what is ultimately real. As much science and physics as we understand, there are innumerable scientific truths that we have not even begun to experience, and an innumerable scientific truths that we will never know. So it is ultimately not even rational to place complete trust in our pursuit of science.

I have no problem trusting the concept of evolution, though, especially since it has been a contention of philosophers and theologians for hundreds of years that the entirety of the human experience is an evolutionary one. As we learn, discuss, grasp, and think, we are evolving toward greater truth and understanding. Many theologians have claimed that the Bible is recounting of man's evolving relationship with God, recording a process of manifestation and discernment by which we draw closer to an understanding of God (and also explaining why there is, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, a more merciful God depicted as the Bible itself evolves). So to accept biological evolution means that you accept that we are evolving in both substance and in form. That's actually a very exciting idea.

This conversation, unfortunately, is due to be hijacked but thanks for listening and its regrettable we cannot continue this discussion here.

[kalm]

Nothing (besides the lolz). But then again, no one gains anything from a transaction of which the other party won't listen. I'm all for free speech and discourse, but some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter how hard you try, and I'm afraid I've put Seagrizz on the list. It's not worth my time to have debate him every time it comes up if we repeat the same jargon over and over and nothing changes. So instead of letting the neutral onlooker be berated by misinformation, I'm just going to inform said onlooker that he has no understanding what he is talking about, nor will he listen to actual experts that aren't from the Discovery Institute (who by the way are the farthest thing from experts) .

About as much is accomplished in a conversation in the above then the "debates" that we have. It's one thing if we were debating government policy, or some deep philosophical concept, but really we're talking about black and white science of what is fact and what is not. In this case, there is overwhelming consensus, and unlike the global warming business we actually can test in labs aspects of evolution and also apply it for medical purposes. No serious biologist believe in ID just as no serious astronomer believes "intelligent orbit" or some nonsense such as that (relativity is sufficient).

That's why I don't tend to post here much anymore because everyone has their opinions, of which they would love to cling to, and no one seems to want to admit they are wrong or they don't know enough about the subject. Despite this, no one trusts the experts because we're taught in the media-savvy world that there are always 2 sides to an issue, even though that is not always the case. We accept consensus among computer scientists on technobabble on face value as fact, but in the science that has a direct impact on our lives, there seems to be an enormous consensus on things, and instead of recognizing that, in a seemingly special-pleading sort of reasoning, people (and this is not just on this board) tend to think there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists.

If we want to have an honest discussion, and actually learn things about reality, I'll have it, but I'm not wasting my time on people who espouse debunked myths like 1970s TIME magazine articles of a global ice age, crocaducks, and irreducible complexity and seemingly cling to those myths, because that just tells me people have made up their minds and having a discussion is a waste of my time because nothing will come from it.

It's only the internet.

Hey, your knowledge of evolutionary science is impressive. You are among the most accomplished parties on this board on that subject. I enjoy reading your posts, especially because I learn from them.

And I said before, ID is not science, most notably because its essential thesis -- that evolution is the intentional product of an intelligent designer -- cannot be tested by scientific experiment or observation.

On the other hand, the contention that evolution is not the product of an intelligent designer is as equally incapable of being tested by the scientific method.

For these reasons, I don't think ID is appropriately included within a science curriculum. As I said earlier, ID is a philosophical and theological issue and actually ties into centuries of philosophical tradition discussing the nature and manifestations of a God.

It's unfortunate that scientists tend to be so narrowly educated in our society that they often overlook philosophy and theology. Even Stephen Hawking claims that, because the universe (or multi-verses), and its laws, can operate independently of a creator, that implies that they do operate independently of a creator. That's a false assumption.

Take Cleets; a brilliant free-thinking guy, and yet he feels the need for a God. That seems to hold true for most of mankind. Where does that need come from? I certainly think its absurd to say it comes from some delusion, because you are essentially then claiming there is a mass delusion of man -- a contention which is irrational, because man is the most rational of all beings here on earth. To ignore this question, as so many men of science do intentionally or unintentionally, is in itself irrational.

The contention of many is that the advances of science would eventually negate the question of God, but that has not proven true, because here we are in the 21st century, and God is still very much a part of the human experience. God remains, because science, for all its beauty, cannot tell us "why." And we need to know why. Knowing how is not enough for us. Without God, there is no why, and at some point you have to say there must be a why, so there must be a God; or,

The alternative is that our existence has no why, and that the existentialists were right, and our existence is absurd. That is why I admire the existentialists -- because at least they freely admitted the consequences of their lack of belief. In contrast, we have modern secular humanists who say there is no God, but then try to find meaning to our existence. That lacks reason, because if there is no over-arching objective source for our existence, then there is no over-arching meaning for our existence -- other than we are the most evolved of earth's creatures.

There is a great scene in The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan and Alyosha have this remarkable discussion. Alyosha declares that Ivan (a great intellectual) is an atheist, but Ivan responds that he accepts the existence of God, essentially because there is no alternative for a creature who can only perceive three dimensions (he then goes on to explain why he has issues with the nature of God). And I think that is important to recall. No matter how advanced you become in science, understand that it is not rational to draw ultimate conclusions about God based on what can be tangibly experienced through our senses. What is rational is to acknowledge that we can experience (and sense) a part of what is ultimately real. As much science and physics as we understand, there are innumerable scientific truths that we have not even begun to experience, and an innumerable scientific truths that we will never know. So it is ultimately not even rational to place complete trust in our pursuit of science.

I have no problem trusting the concept of evolution, though, especially since it has been a contention of philosophers and theologians for hundreds of years that the entirety of the human experience is an evolutionary one. As we learn, discuss, grasp, and think, we are evolving toward greater truth and understanding. Many theologians have claimed that the Bible is recounting of man's evolving relationship with God, recording a process of manifestation and discernment by which we draw closer to an understanding of God (and also explaining why there is, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, a more merciful God depicted as the Bible itself evolves). So to accept biological evolution means that you accept that we are evolving in both substance and in form. That's actually a very exciting idea.

This conversation, unfortunately, is due to be hijacked but thanks for listening and its regrettable we cannot continue this discussion here.

The last two posts:

YT - don't take a message board too seriously.

JJ - your stripped down definition of God without all the b.s. is very appealing.