=> 'Creationism' biologist kicked to the gutter! <= LOL!
Reality_CheckŠ
Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal
Society following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.
Last week Prof Reiss - a Church of England minister - said creationism
should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.
He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying
creationism should be "taught" in science classes.
The society said some of his comments had been "open to misinterpretation".
This had damaged its reputation.
'Not scientific'
"As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the
best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of
education - a part-time post he held on secondment," it said in a statement.
"He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science
education at the Institute of Education."
The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no
scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.
"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers
should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific
theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."
I believe the Royal Society should have supported him and used this
opportunity to further a reasoned debate
Roland Jackson British Association for the Advancement of Science
It added that the society greatly appreciated the efforts of Prof Reiss, a
biologist, in furthering its work in the important field of science
education over the past two years and wished him well for the future.
Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the
origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution.
Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the
University of Liverpool, estimated that about one in 10 children was from a
family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.
He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to
include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as
the Big Bang and evolution - rather than simply giving the impression that
such children were wrong.
Misconceptions
Reacting to his stepping down, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and
society at Imperial College London, said: "I fear that in this action the
Royal Society may have only diminished itself.
"This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.
"This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public
misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should
applaud."
Dr Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, said Prof Reiss's departure was a "real loss".
"I was at the actual discussion and what I heard him say , however it has
been reported, was essentially the position advocated by the Royal Society,"
he said.
Dr Jackson said the organisation "should have supported him and used this
opportunity to further a reasoned debate".
Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham, said:
"There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely unsupportable
as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to
enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has
no basis in evidence or rational thought."
FriarTuck
> Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham,
> said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely
> unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in
> schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific
> nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."
pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various fossils so
disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs were not mentioned
in the bible so they never existed" for example
its all how literally you take the story of Genesis, starting at what is
a day, people are generally very near sighted so they think a day is 12
hours or so, and don't even take into consideration that there are 24
hour days for much of the year in some part of the planet, so basically a
3 month long day occurs even here and now...
an example of myth creeping in is the idea men have one less rib because
in Genesis God used a rib to create Eve, but the Bible does not say that,
its an addition of mumbo jumbo....
its just human nature I think to embellish, and that is even warned
against in the bible, slippery slope, like hilbo clintons claims of
landing under sniper fire....
as for the science of creating Eve from a rib, apart from the gender
change at gene level, we are not far off being able to do that ourselves
now.....
FriarTuck
well, actually, the hormones in the water seem to be doing just that...
turning male to female... suits the feminazis and those who have their
own hormone free water supplies no doubt.....
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
> > Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham,
> > said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely
> > unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in
> > schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific
> > nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."
>
> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>
> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various fossils so
> disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs were not mentioned
> in the bible so they never existed" for example
>
> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans
having occured through evolution and natural selection or through
being created (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky
Pixie. YOu silly cunt.
FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with what Reiss said. What is a
teacher supposed to do otherwise. Ignore the pupil?
I also don't understand why so many Religios nutters feel threatened
by evolution (unless they are worried that they're being "selected
out"). It is hardly incompatible with a belief in God.
FriarTuck
> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
>> > Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham,
>> > said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely
>> > unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism
>> > in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is
>> > scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational
>> > thought."
>>
>> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>>
>> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
>> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various fossils
>> so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs were not
>> mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>>
>> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>
> No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans having
> occured through evolution and natural selection or through being created
> (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky Pixie. YOu silly
> cunt.
>
so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something out of
nothing?
evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
theory, religion is a belief.
if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If there
was something there before, the universe was not started by a big bang
but by what came before the big bang....
I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
theories, but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with
a knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...), and
make their own choice.
They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and the
belief, I know the early books were written by Moses and manually copied
and translated hundreds/thousands of times before we have what we have
today.
but, as a book of history of the Jews the bible is not as much marketing
hype as you might expect... ;)
R...@panix.com
> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis, starting at what is
> a day, people are generally very near sighted so they think a day is 12
> hours or so, and don't even take into consideration that there are 24
> hour days for much of the year in some part of the planet, so basically a
> 3 month long day occurs even here and now...
...and on the seventh 3-month day, God rested.
That is why we Keep the Sabbath Holy by resting for 3 months out of every
21. But the Atheist won't admit it!
And another thing. This shows that the words used in the Bible can mean
ANYTHING. A day can mean several months. Salvation can mean Damnation.
Ya never know.
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> > On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
> >> > Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham,
> >> > said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely
> >> > unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism
> >> > in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is
> >> > scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational
> >> > thought."
>
> >> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>
> >> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
> >> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various fossils
> >> so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs were not
> >> mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>
> >> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>
> > No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans having
> > occured through evolution and natural selection or through being created
> > (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky Pixie. YOu silly
> > cunt.
>
> so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something out of
> nothing?
Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does it attempt to. Which was sort of
my point.
>
> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
> theory, religion is a belief.
Correct. Of course, the theories you mention above have wildy
differeing amounts of supprting evidence. Oh, and the Higgs Boson is a
*prediction* which was generated from a theory..
>
> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If there
> was something there before, the universe was not started by a big bang
> but by what came before the big bang....
>
> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
> theories,
Who are "they"? Which "two theories" - you appear to have only
mentioned one (The Big Bang)
> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with
> a knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...), and
> make their own choice.
The Bible is not a source of scientific explanations.. Not by any
stretch of the imagination.
>
> They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and the
> belief,
I agree. Usually it's because people with "faith" or often rather
uneducated and can't follow e.g. the theory of evolution, so they get
scared by it and retreat into their ignorance rather than exmaine 1)
What the theory of evolution is 2) What they actually believe
themselves.
> I know the early books were written by Moses and manually copied
> and translated hundreds/thousands of times before we have what we have
> today.
Err.. how do you know the early books were written by Moses?
Or that Moses even existed?
>
> but, as a book of history of the Jews the bible is not as much marketing
> hype as you might expect... ;)- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
FriarTuck
you are extending what I said, beyond what I said.... the words in the
bible are "and there was evening and there was morning and that was the
nth day" me, I would say that is a pretty obscure definition. I don't
argue that we call a day=24 hours today.
and yes, to an extent etymology is very tricky, bible went from Hebrew to
Greek, to Latin to English (at the cost of some peoples lives even in the
16th Century even though their translation was pretty much the one that
was used in KJV) and some words obviously have no one single parallel.
Kenny McCormack
FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> wrote (slightly edited by me):
...
>evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
>religion is a mechanism of social control.
HTH.
FriarTuck
> On 23 Sep, 13:43, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>> > On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
>> >> > Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of
>> >> > Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is
>> >> > completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to
>> >> > mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to
>> >> > demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis
>> >> > in evidence or rational thought."
>>
>> >> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>>
not very Christian of me, sorry, Prof. Higgins perhaps should have less
of a maginot line/titanic approach....
>> >> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
>> >> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various
>> >> fossils so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs
>> >> were not mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>>
>> >> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>>
>> > No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans
>> > having occured through evolution and natural selection or through
>> > being created (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky
>> > Pixie. YOu silly cunt.
>>
>> so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something out
>> of nothing?
>
> Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does it attempt to. Which was sort of
> my point.
>
well evolution got started from absence of life to presence of life
somehow, for it to hold true, yet evolution does not explain that first
organism, nor is there any evidence of it.
>
>
>> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
>> theory, religion is a belief.
>
> Correct. Of course, the theories you mention above have wildy differeing
> amounts of supprting evidence. Oh, and the Higgs Boson is a *prediction*
> which was generated from a theory..
>
if its a prediction generated from a theory... ffs its still as
theoretical as the theory it was based on.... if not more so....
>
>> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If
>> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a big
>> bang but by what came before the big bang....
>
>> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
>> theories,
>
> Who are "they"? Which "two theories" - you appear to have only mentioned
> one (The Big Bang)
>
If you read my previous post again you should see I mentioned two,
evolution and big bang (and higgs boson)
>> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with a
>> knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...), and
>> make their own choice.
>
> The Bible is not a source of scientific explanations.. Not by any
> stretch of the imagination.
>
you think God would give the likes of you (or me) the keys of the
universe... ho ho... stupid boy. The bible tells the story of the tower
of babel.
not that I say we should stop science... no, on the contrary, science of
the right sort is good, though some can be exceedingly bad/nasty as
well... obviously we should concentrate on the good stuff, things like
this cern machine seem to grab all the money for potentially little or
disastrous results... thing is costing even more at the moment due to
faults....
>
>
>> They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and the
>> belief,
>
> I agree. Usually it's because people with "faith" or often rather
> uneducated and can't follow e.g. the theory of evolution, so they get
> scared by it and retreat into their ignorance rather than exmaine 1)
> What the theory of evolution is 2) What they actually believe
> themselves.
>
I don't think there is one single theory of evolution, some seem to claim
there is a self modification going on (which to me implies intelligent
design) others just say its random mutation/luck/fitness for current
local environmental conditions which may change tomorrow and wipe out a
previously massively successful species... and bring on a (until now)
"loser"...
if you don't want to pray to Jesus Christ/God Almighty that today/
tomorrow brings fortuitous circumstances (your daily bread) or give
thanks for todays, then that's your business... and, I am not saying its
a foolproof method of material satisfaction in any way... I have read
quite a bit of the Bible.
>> I know the early books were written by Moses and manually copied and
>> translated hundreds/thousands of times before we have what we have
>> today.
>
> Err.. how do you know the early books were written by Moses? Or that
> Moses even existed?
>
OK ya got me.... I believe the early books were written by Moses and
accept I have no scientific proof of Moses ever having existed..
Andy
What I find amazing in this debate is that evolution, like
creationism, is just a theory. Darwin is newer than the Bible, which
makes it technically more scientific, but one day maybe Professor X
will replace the works of Darwin, as Genetics supplanted Genesis.
Creation theories are the domain of metaphysics or hypothetical
science. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is the
question of scope. Certain questions such as "is there life after
death?" or "is there a God?" are impossible to answer using physics,
chemistry and biology alone.
personally, I used to believe in Darwin, but then I saw The Matrix,
which IMHO offers a better explanation of creation than the Victorian
model. Not an entirely new idea, previously known as the Hermetic or
Mentalist viewpoint. A popular believe amongst videogamers! Shortly
before his death, comic Bill Hicks switched from evolution to
mentalism- see the "it's just a ride" sketch.....
A forth belief system, (what could be called Scientology), involves
space aliens. This religion, while "rediscovered" by L. Ron Hubbard,
was essentially founded on Dogon tribal beliefs, and is possibly as
old as Christianity.
What I can't understand is that why the latter two are considered
"psychotic" while evolution and creationism are more acceptable.
As for religions and science, the problem with modern scientists is
they see the two as distinct, when in fact they are both branches that
come under philosophy. Einstein surprised a lot of people by not being
an atheist - stating that science without religion is no better than
religion without science.
Take the religious concept of Karma and compare it with Newton's Law
of Reaction. They are identical concepts, one refers to the spiritual
dimensions, one refers to the physical...
Free your mind, the rest will follow.....
FriarTuck
well, not really, gravity, water and snow are easily observable
phenomena, and that religion is social control I don't dispute, but its
more than just that, though I see it corrupted all over the place, and I
don't claim to have the perfect version myself.
(and of course water is interesting because no single formula can
describe its expansion properties...)
you have to remember though, protestantism was at the heart of the
enlightenment... against "pestilent Popery, idolatry and superstition"
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>
>> Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham,
>> said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely
>> unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention
>> creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the
>> idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational
>> thought."
>
> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>
> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard
Bullshit.
> him say on radio he wasn't a literal creationist,
What other kind is there, jackass?
> and I myself can see the various fossils so disagree with
> those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs
> were not mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>
> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
The "inerrant, immutable word of GOD!".
> starting at what is a day, people are generally very near sighted so they
> think a day
> is 12 hours or so, and don't even take into consideration that there
> are 24 hour days for much of the year in some part of the planet, so
> basically a 3 month long day occurs even here and now...
You really are a stammering jackass.
>
> an example of myth creeping in is the idea men have one less rib
> because in Genesis God used a rib to create Eve, but the Bible does
> not say that, its an addition of mumbo jumbo....
The WHOLE thing is "mumbo jumbo" you stammering moron.
>
> its just human nature I think to embellish, and that is even warned
> against in the bible, slippery slope, like hilbo clintons claims of
> landing under sniper fire....
>
> as for the science of creating Eve from a rib, apart from the gender
> change at gene level, we are not far off being able to do that
> ourselves now.....
You're a fucking idiot.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of
>>>> Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is
>>>> completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to
>>>> mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to
>>>> demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis
>>>> in evidence or rational thought."
>>>
>>> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>>>
>>> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
>>> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various
>>> fossils so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs
>>> were not mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>>>
>>> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>>
>> No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans
>> having occured through evolution and natural selection or through
>> being created (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky
>> Pixie. YOu silly cunt.
>>
>
> so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something
> out of nothing?
Yes.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:27:09 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep, 13:43, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>>> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
Nor does it have to, jackass.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:49:16 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> In article <iD4Ck.66071$6m1....@newsfe16.ams2>, FriarTuck
>> <no...@invalid.com> wrote (slightly edited by me): ...
>>> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is
>>> a theory, gravity is a theory, water is a theory, snow is a theory,
>>> religion is a mechanism of social control.
>>
>> HTH.
>
> well, not really, gravity, water and snow are easily observable
> phenomena,
So is evolution, you stammering idiot.
_ Prof. Jonez _
You're ignorance is what's "amazing", moron.
Evolution is fact.
Creationism is NOT a theory.
HTH.
Jack
> considered "psychotic" while evolution and creationism
> are more acceptable.
Evolutionary biology has actually produced material results. Like the polio
vaccine.
Andy
Here's the flaw in evolution as far as I'm concerned:
Identical twins share almost all (if not all) the genetic traits of
their sibling. With this in mind, you would expect a person to feel
equally sexually attracted to both twins. In 99% of people, this isn't
the case. The reverse is very much true, even for twins who have the
acting ability to pass themselves off as their twin. It's almost as if
the genetic similarity highlights the spiritual difference...
_ Prof. Jonez _
<cue subsequent flaw in poster's "logic">
> Identical twins share almost all (if not all) the genetic traits of
> their sibling. With this in mind, you would expect a person to feel
> equally sexually attracted to both twins.
Complete BULLSHIT.
<snip rest of delusional idiocy>
parr...@yahoo.com
No, that's wrong. Evolution doesn't claim to explain the orgiin of
LIFE, merely the Origin Of the Species. I'd have thought the clue
woudl have been in the title, there..
> somehow, for it to hold true, yet evolution does not explain that first
> organism, nor is there any evidence of it.
I'd say you don't understand what evolution actually says..
>
>
>
> >> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
> >> theory, religion is a belief.
>
> > Correct. Of course, the theories you mention above have wildy differeing
> > amounts of supprting evidence. Oh, and the Higgs Boson is a *prediction*
> > which was generated from a theory..
>
> if its a prediction generated from a theory... ffs its still as
> theoretical as the theory it was based on.... if not more so....
Is it as theoretical as gravity? Electromagnetism? The thing is, we
are now in a position to test that theory. And if smashing elemental
particles together DOESN'T result in a shower of new subatomic
particles, then the Standard Model will have to be seriously
rethought.
Similarly, evolution can be observed in the lab, and so far all
available evidence supports evolution (for over 200 years).
Religions don't tend to abandon tenets like that. THat, to me, is
highly suspicious.
>
>
>
> >> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If
> >> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a big
> >> bang but by what came before the big bang....
>
> >> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
> >> theories,
>
> > Who are "they"? Which "two theories" - you appear to have only mentioned
> > one (The Big Bang)
>
> If you read my previous post again you should see I mentioned two,
> evolution and big bang (and higgs boson)
Well, who's "pushing" the Big Bang or the Higgs Boson?
Evolution gets taught in schools for te esame reason electromagnetism,
instead of fairies and pixies is taught in school - it is a testable
scientific theory. That's hardly "pushing".
>
> >> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with a
> >> knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...), and
> >> make their own choice.
>
> > The Bible is not a source of scientific explanations.. Not by any
> > stretch of the imagination.
>
> you think God would give the likes of you (or me) the keys of the
> universe... >ho ho... stupid boy. The bible tells the story of the tower
> of babel.
So why would you recommend discussing the Bible with a scientist,
stupid boy?
>
> not that I say we should stop science... no, on the contrary, science of
> the right sort is good,
Ah ha! BAD SCIENCE. I see.. is evolution BAD SCIENCE? If so, why?
> though some can be exceedingly bad/nasty as
> well... obviously we should concentrate on the good stuff, things like
> this cern machine seem to grab all the money for potentially little or
> disastrous results... thing is costing even more at the moment due to
> faults....
The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are among the crowning
intellectual achievements of the 20th century - to not continue that
line of inquiry would be intellectually criminal.Oh, and CERN cost
FAR less to build than all those pointless cathedrals..
>
> >> They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and the
> >> belief,
>
> > I agree. Usually it's because people with "faith" or often rather
> > uneducated and can't follow e.g. the theory of evolution, so they get
> > scared by it and retreat into their ignorance rather than exmaine 1)
> > What the theory of evolution is 2) What they actually believe
> > themselves.
>
> I don't think there is one single theory of evolution,
I'm referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory part.
>some seem to claim there is a self modification going on (which to me implies
> intelligent design)
Can you cite any of these discussions?
> others just say its random mutation/luck/fitness
If it's "fitness" is hardly lucky, is it? Once again, random mutation
is a fact. An observable, repeatable scientific fact.
> for current local environmental conditions which may change tomorrow and wipe > out a previously massively successful species... and bring on a (until now)
> "loser"...
It's rather more subtle than that.
>
> if you don't want to pray to Jesus Christ/God Almighty that today/
> tomorrow brings fortuitous circumstances (your daily bread) or give
> thanks for todays, then that's your business... and, I am not saying its
> a foolproof method of material satisfaction in any way...
So it's just a pointless ritual? I am certailny "grateful" for being
alive, and I am in awe of the universe - or Creation, if you like!
> I have read quite a bit of the Bible.
Good lad. I've read it all, I think. Lots of it is eminently
forgettable, I'm afraid.
> >> I know the early books were written by Moses and manually copied and
> >> translated hundreds/thousands of times before we have what we have
> >> today.
>
> > Err.. how do you know the early books were written by Moses? Or that
> > Moses even existed?
>
> OK ya got me.... I believe the early books were written by Moses and
> accept I have no scientific proof of Moses ever having existed..
You mean evidence, not proof. ANd other than hearsay you don't have
any evidence at all..
Deadrat
news:iD4Ck.66071$6m1....@newsfe16.ams2:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
>>> > Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of
>>> > Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is
>>> > completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to
>>> > mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to
>>> > demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis
>>> > in evidence or rational thought."
>>>
>>> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the gutter....
>>>
>>> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio he
>>> wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various
>>> fossils so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs
>>> were not mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for example
>>>
>>> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>>
>> No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans
>> having occured through evolution and natural selection or through
>> being created (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic Sky
>> Pixie. YOu silly cunt.
>>
>
> so, what is the spark of life then?
A metaphysical concept, also called "the soul." There is no scientific
evidence for some magic "spark" that distinguishes the biochemistry of
life from any other chemical process.
> does science explain something out of nothing?
Certainly not life. Life is a consequence of the action of physical
laws.
> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
> theory, religion is a belief.
Evolution and the big bang are theories with evidence in their favor so
overwhelming that it is downright perverse not to accept them. The higgs
boson is not a theory, but a postulated subatomic particle, the existence
of which is predicted by another theory, the so-called standard model of
physics.
> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang?
That would be spacetime.
> If
> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a
> big bang but by what came before the big bang....
The big bang says that the universe started with a singularity, so
there's no "before." What's north of the north pole?
> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
> theories,
Science doesn't "push" theories. It presents evidence. New evidence may
require the modification of theories.
> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it
> with a knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian
> scientist...), and make their own choice.
A "scientific christian" is by definition an oxymoron.
> They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and the
> belief,
Only if you insist on believing things for which there is contradictory
evidence.
> I know the early books were written by Moses
And you know this how?
> and manually
> copied and translated hundreds/thousands of times before we have what
> we have today.
And you would then trust the authenticity of these copies and
translations why?
> but, as a book of history of the Jews the bible is not as much
> marketing hype as you might expect... ;)
As a book of history of the Jews, the Bible isn't a history of the Jews
at all.
Deadrat
Well, not anything (or ANYTHING). Hebrew has a metaphorical meaning for
"day" as some period of time just as English does. "Every dog has his
day" does not mean that Fido gets exactly 24 hours for himself.
> Salvation can mean Damnation. Ya never know.
Apparently *Ya* never do. But how about *Ya*hweh?
FriarTuck
evolution a testable theory?
I don't think so... who has see a reptile turn into a bird?
OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features, not seen
a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
though I don't doubt we could "create" one shortly if not now using
genetics....
Deadrat
news:ne6Ck.66079$6m1....@newsfe16.ams2:
The KJV was translated from the "original" languages; the Old Testament
from Hebrew; the New, from Greek.
Jack
We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant.
Jack
Organic chemistry is an entirely different field of study from physical
chemistry.
Deadrat
news:Iy7Ck.66086$6m1....@newsfe16.ams2:
I'm not sure what "got started" means in this locution. Evolution is a
theory of how life changes over time. Abiogenesis is a theory of how
life got started. They are separate theories studying separate things.
It is not necessary to know how a fire started to be able to study how it
progresses.
>>> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is
>>> a theory, religion is a belief.
>>
>> Correct. Of course, the theories you mention above have wildy
>> differeing amounts of supprting evidence. Oh, and the Higgs Boson is
>> a *prediction* which was generated from a theory..
>>
>
> if its a prediction generated from a theory... ffs its still as
> theoretical as the theory it was based on.... if not more so....
If you use scientific terms loosely, then you will merely confuse
yourself. The Standard Model is a scientific theory; the Higgs Boson is
a prediction of that theory.
>>> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If
>>> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a
>>> big bang but by what came before the big bang....
>>
>>> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
>>> theories,
>>
>> Who are "they"? Which "two theories" - you appear to have only
>> mentioned one (The Big Bang)
>>
>
> If you read my previous post again you should see I mentioned two,
> evolution and big bang (and higgs boson)
>
>>> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with a
>>> knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...), and
>>> make their own choice.
>>
>> The Bible is not a source of scientific explanations.. Not by any
>> stretch of the imagination.
>>
>
> you think God would give the likes of you (or me) the keys of the
> universe... ho ho... stupid boy.
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
> The bible tells the story of the tower of babel.
For which there is no evidence for and plenty against.
> not that I say we should stop science... no, on the contrary, science
> of the right sort is good, though some can be exceedingly bad/nasty as
> well... obviously we should concentrate on the good stuff, things like
> this cern machine seem to grab all the money for potentially little or
> disastrous results... thing is costing even more at the moment due to
> faults....
Science is not about "good" and "bad"; science is about evidence for what
is. Nothing in science can tell us whether the Large Hadron Collider is
an appropriate project. Science can only tell us about the results from
running the LHC.
>>> They are not necessarily incompatible, the scientific theories and
>>> the belief,
>>
>> I agree. Usually it's because people with "faith" or often rather
>> uneducated and can't follow e.g. the theory of evolution, so they get
>> scared by it and retreat into their ignorance rather than exmaine 1)
>> What the theory of evolution is 2) What they actually believe
>> themselves.
>>
>
> I don't think there is one single theory of evolution, some seem to
> claim there is a self modification going on (which to me implies
> intelligent design) others just say its random mutation/luck/fitness
> for current local environmental conditions which may change tomorrow
> and wipe out a previously massively successful species... and bring on
> a (until now) "loser"...
There is one accepted theory of evolution. Like all scientific theories,
there are debates about some of the mechanisms.
Nobody claims that "self modification" is going on, unless you count
human endeavors. The only evidence of "intelligent design" is the
intelligent action of human beings, who have learned to modify genomes.
>
> if you don't want to pray to Jesus Christ/God Almighty that today/
> tomorrow brings fortuitous circumstances (your daily bread) or give
> thanks for todays, then that's your business...
Thank you. And may I note how refreshingly unchristian your attitude is.
> and, I am not saying
> its a foolproof method of material satisfaction in any way... I have
> read quite a bit of the Bible.
But none in its orginal language, I'll bet.
Deadrat
news:8739d21f-f4e6-41d4...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
This is a nonsensical statement that relies on the vernacular definition
of "theory" as some flight of fancy. A scientific theory has evidence,
makes predictions, and so on. Evolution fits the latter definition;
creationism doesn't.
> Darwin is newer than the Bible, which
> makes it technically more scientific,
I assume by "Darwin," you mean evolution. Evolution's age has nothing to
do with it. Wilhelm Reich's theory of orgone energy is newer than
evolution. Is it "technically more scientific"?
> but one day maybe Professor X
> will replace the works of Darwin, as Genetics supplanted Genesis.
Professor X's new evidence may someday replace (or more likely modify)
the "works of Darwin" (which themselves have been modified by later
evidence). But genetics has not "supplanted" Genesis. The former is
science; the latter is mythology.
>
> Creation theories are the domain of metaphysics or hypothetical
> science. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is the
> question of scope. Certain questions such as "is there life after
> death?" or "is there a God?" are impossible to answer using physics,
> chemistry and biology alone.
Or using them at all. They're not scientific questions.
> personally, I used to believe in Darwin,
You keep saying "Darwin" when I take it you mean "evolution" (or to use
an equivalent phrase, "modern biology.") Darwin knew nothing of
genetics; the field has moved on since his time. Also no one "believes"
Darwin (or in evolution). You either understand it or you don't.
> but then I saw The Matrix,
> which IMHO offers a better explanation of creation than the Victorian
> model.
Biology doesn't use "the Victorian model." It uses modern evidence. And
what does "better" mean in this context? How is an idea behind a movie
-- an idea for which there is no and can be no scientific evidence --
provide a better scientific explanation of what you see in the world?
Maybe you mean it's just more fun and less work.
> Not an entirely new idea, previously known as the Hermetic or
> Mentalist viewpoint. A popular believe amongst videogamers! Shortly
> before his death, comic Bill Hicks switched from evolution to
> mentalism- see the "it's just a ride" sketch.....
Oh, well. If a comedian endorsed the idea, then it must be right. It
couldn't be, say, a joke, could it?
> A forth belief system, (what could be called Scientology), involves
> space aliens. This religion, while "rediscovered" by L. Ron Hubbard,
> was essentially founded on Dogon tribal beliefs, and is possibly as
> old as Christianity.
>
> What I can't understand is that why the latter two are considered
> "psychotic" while evolution and creationism are more acceptable.
Well, generally, the hearing voices that aren't there and seeing things
that aren't there are considered signs of mental illness.
Evolution is an acceptable scientific theory because it makes predictions
that are borne out by the evidence. The others aren't scientific
theories at all.
> As for religions and science, the problem with modern scientists is
> they see the two as distinct, when in fact they are both branches that
> come under philosophy.
You can call them what you want, as long as you can distinguish between
them.
> Einstein surprised a lot of people by not being an atheist
But he didnt' believe that Der Alte was a personal God.
> - stating that science without religion is no better than
> religion without science.
Where did he state this?
> Take the religious concept of Karma and compare it with Newton's Law
> of Reaction. They are identical concepts, one refers to the spiritual
> dimensions, one refers to the physical...
Only in some inexact, non-mathematical metaphorical sense. There are no
laws of Karma like F=ma.
> Free your mind, the rest will follow.....
Hardly. Train your mind. Understanding may follow.
Deadrat
12ff-47ba-8e1...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On 23 Sep, 16:49, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Andy wrote:
This is simply untrue. Identical twins share the same genetic makeup,
that is, the same genes. They do not share the same *expression* of those
genes, and the older they get, the more this expression diverges.
Neither do identical twins share the same environment or the same
experiences.
> With this in mind, you would expect a person to feel
> equally sexually attracted to both twins.
Why? Your assumption is false.
> In 99% of people, this isn't the case.
Do you have a cite for this figure?
> The reverse is very much true, even for twins who have the
> acting ability to pass themselves off as their twin. It's almost as if
> the genetic similarity highlights the spiritual difference...
Define "spiritual difference" and tell us how to measure it.
parr...@yahoo.com
Creationism isn't a theory.
>Darwin is newer than the Bible, which
> makes it technically more scientific, but one day maybe Professor X
> will replace the works of Darwin, as Genetics supplanted Genesis.
If some new evidence comes along, no doubt. However, it's stood the
test of over 200 years...
Compare that with e.g. physics in teh same timeframe...
>
> Creation theories are the domain of metaphysics or hypothetical
> science. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is the
> question of scope. Certain questions such as "is there life after
> death?" or "is there a God?" are impossible to answer using physics,
> chemistry and biology alone.
As are "Do unicorns have huge penises?" or "Did giant gay invisible
pygmies kick over the twin towers?"
>
> personally, I used to believe in Darwin, but then I saw The Matrix,
Holy shit...
> which IMHO offers a better explanation of creation than the Victorian
> model. Not an entirely new idea
No, it's clearly ripped off Phillip K Dick who did in a far more
sophisticated and vastly less pretentious way with far fewer words.
He's worth reading for some fun stuff about Gnosticism, space aliens
and powerful hallucinogens and amphetamines.
>, previously known as the Hermetic or
> Mentalist viewpoint. A popular believe amongst videogamers! Shortly
> before his death, comic Bill Hicks switched from evolution to
> mentalism- see the "it's just a ride" sketch.....
That strikes me as cowardly..
>
> A forth belief system, (what could be called Scientology), involves
> space aliens. This religion, while "rediscovered" by L. Ron Hubbard,
> was essentially founded on Dogon tribal beliefs
Not really. Xenu and his DC8s don't feature prominently in Dogon
religion. (Which in itself seems reminiscent of some Egyptian beliefs)
>, and is possibly as old as Christianity.
The idea of us being created by otherwordly beings who live in the sky
is pretty old, yes.
>
> What I can't understand is that why the latter two are considered
> "psychotic" while evolution and creationism are more acceptable.
Scientologists are psychotic for not realising their silliness for
being sold a madcap story by a self-styled science fiction writer who
once said the best way to make money was to start a religion.
>
> As for religions and science, the problem with modern scientists is
> they see the two as distinct
Nonsense. Many, many biologists, chemists etc are religious.
>,when in fact they are both branches that
> come under philosophy. Einstein surprised a lot of people by not being
> an atheist - stating that science without religion is no better than
> religion without science
I suspect what he was getting at was that both had their roles, and
should stick to them.
>
> Take the religious concept of Karma and compare it with Newton's Law
> of Reaction. They are identical concepts, one refers to the spiritual
> dimensions, one refers to the physical...
Except one can be observed and repeated, and the other is bullshit.
>
> Free your mind, the rest will follow.....
I do like Funkadelic, though!
Deadrat
news:R99Ck.162611$b12....@newsfe17.ams2:
When you play the fool like this, you make the Baby Jesus cry.
Evolution does not predict that reptiles turn into birds, but that modern
reptiles and modern birds had a common ancestor. For which there is
plenty of genetic and fossil evidence.
> OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features, not
> seen a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
When you play the fool like this, you make the Baby Jesus cry.
Evolution does not predict that dogs will fly or breathe with gills. In
fact, evolution predicts that these things will *not* happen.
> though I don't doubt we could "create" one shortly if not now using
> genetics....
Given your evident ignorance, I hope you don't mind if I disregard what
you don't doubt.
Deadrat
dndkoFsYSvUTVn...@posted.echolabs:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> wrote in
>> news:iD4Ck.66071$6m1....@newsfe16.ams2:
>>
<snip/>
>>> so, what is the spark of life then?
>>
>> A metaphysical concept, also called "the soul." There is
>> no scientific evidence for some magic "spark" that
>> distinguishes the biochemistry of life from any other
>> chemical process.
>
> Organic chemistry is an entirely different field of study from physical
> chemistry.
Thanks for sharing.
But you do realize what a complete nonsequitur that is, right?
Jack
Well it is unusual that all these organic reactions can take place at low
temperatures.
Lou Ravi
> you think God would give the likes of you (or me) the keys of the
> universe... ho ho... stupid boy.
What a strange question. To answer it requires the belief that there is
a god, that he/she/it is the one mentioned in the Bible and that this
Bible was somehow written by or reflects the word of god. About the only
'divine intervention' concerning the written word in the book is that of
Moses noting down the ten commandments. Whatever way you look at it the
Bible is exclusively the work of Man, a fine history of the trials and
troubles of the Jews in the OT and a wise philosophy in the NT. The
gospels that is, St Paul should be ignored as the writings of a
frustrated old git who borders on the fascist. An excellent organiser
but nothing more.
Lou Ravi
> Creation theories are the domain of metaphysics or hypothetical
> science. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is the
> question of scope. Certain questions such as "is there life after
> death?" or "is there a God?" are impossible to answer using physics,
> chemistry and biology alone.
Impossible to answer full stop I would say, which is probably why
believers in the 'true religion' (that is say the one that holds sway
where they are) aren't locked up for being insane
Lou Ravi
> Here's the flaw in evolution as far as I'm concerned:
>
> Identical twins share almost all (if not all) the genetic traits of
> their sibling. With this in mind, you would expect a person to feel
> equally sexually attracted to both twins. In 99% of people, this isn't
> the case.
That would be valid if there was only nature and not nurture, for while
identical twins share most of their genetic makeup (as we also do with
apes) they nevertheless have different experiences in life and can make
different choices (be it out of defiance and/or a desire to
individualise themselves) on clothes, interests etc;
parr...@yahoo.com
Pretty much. Like, cells mutate 'n'shit.
>
> I don't think so... who has see a reptile turn into a bird?
>
> OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features,
What's limited about it? They can selectively breed any "feature" they
want, presumably.
> not seen a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
>
> though I don't doubt we could "create" one shortly if not now using
> genetics....
Well, you've already agreed that "unnatural" selection by dog breeders
can change features within a few generations.. imagine what 3.7
billion years and some much more stringent criteria for success can
do.
John Baker
We see our share of loons here in alt.atheism, but this Andy character
has to be in the top ten.
Reality_CheckŠ
Who has seen a Wolf selectively bred into every dog from Chihuahau to
St.Bernard ?
> OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features, not
> seen a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
Nor have we seen a religious nutter who can use even a fraction of the
brain inside their thick skulls.
Reality_CheckŠ
Quantum Fluctuations in Loop Gravity ...more of a Big "Bounce" ...
>
>> If
>> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a
>> big bang but by what came before the big bang....
>
> The big bang says that the universe started with a singularity, so
> there's no "before."
The Big Bounce says the "before" was merely the retraction from the earlier
universe.
>What's north of the north pole?
Sarah "Lipstick" Palin?
>> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those two
>> theories,
>
> Science doesn't "push" theories. It presents evidence. New evidence
> may require the modification of theories.
>
>> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it
>> with a knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian
>> scientist...), and make their own choice.
>
> A "scientific christian" is by definition an oxymoron.
And they should be rendered and waterboarded until they tell
the truth ...
Reality_CheckŠ
> Andy wrote:
>
>> Here's the flaw in evolution as far as I'm concerned:
>>
>> Identical twins share almost all (if not all) the genetic traits of
>> their sibling. With this in mind, you would expect a person to feel
>> equally sexually attracted to both twins. In 99% of people, this
>> isn't the case.
>
> That would be valid if there was only nature and not nurture, for
> while identical twins share most of their genetic makeup (as we also
> do with apes)
Are you seriously asserting the Identical Human Twins are as (dis)similar
as Humans are to "Apes" ?
> they nevertheless have different experiences in life
> and can make different choices (be it out of defiance and/or a desire
> to individualise themselves) on clothes, interests etc;
Which has fuck all to do with some 3rd party's "sexual attraction" to
the DoubleMint Twins.
Deadrat
news:ipWdnd3d_4wssUTV...@posted.echolabs:
OK.
Now, what does that have to do with the fact that organic chemistry and
physical chemistry are different fields of study?
And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking place at low
temperatures?
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> FriarTuck wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:40:24 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Sep, 17:03, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:27:09 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Sep, 13:43, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of
>>>>>>>>> Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism
>>>>>>>>> is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to
>>>>>>>>> mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no
>>>>>>>>> basis in evidence or rational thought."
<snip/>
>> evolution a testable theory?
>>
>> I don't think so... who has see a reptile turn into a bird?
>
> Who has seen a Wolf selectively bred into every dog from Chihuahau to
> St.Bernard ?
>
>> OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features, not
>> seen a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
>
> Nor have we seen a religious nutter who can use even a fraction of the
> brain inside their thick skulls.
Assume a fact not in evidence.
Jack
The mechanisms that allow organic reactions to happen at low temperatures
aren't found in the inorganic world so you have to learn a whole new set of
rules, new species, new bonding, new nomenclature.
>
> And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking
> place at low temperatures?
Life as we know it couldn't exist at the very high, very low temps and large
volumetric changes or very long reaction times seen in physical reactions.
I guess it's unusual because earth is the only place it happens.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Boy, what in *the* hell are you babbling about?
Are you asserting that chemical reactions don't take
place at "low temperatures" ?
>
>>
>> And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking
>> place at low temperatures?
>
> Life as we know it couldn't exist at the very high,
How high?
> very low temps
How low?
> and large volumetric changes
Are you drunk?
> or very long reaction times
How long?
>seen in physical reactions. I guess it's unusual because earth is the only
> place it happens.
And every puddle thinks the hole it has found to be a perfect fit ...
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
<Higg's boson>
> if its a prediction generated from a theory... ffs its still as
> theoretical as the theory it was based on.... if not more so....
It is totally and completely theoretical. By George, I think he's got it!
And if it is detected by the LHC, then such a true prediction lends
support to the underlying theory.
He's Got It! By George!
> not that I say we should stop science... no, on the contrary, science of
> the right sort is good, though some can be exceedingly bad/nasty as
> well...
What science is of the bad/nasty sort?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
R...@panix.com
> > In alt.religion.christian FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis, starting at what
> >> is a day, people are generally very near sighted so they think a day is
> >> 12 hours or so, and don't even take into consideration that there are
> >> 24 hour days for much of the year in some part of the planet, so
> >> basically a 3 month long day occurs even here and now...
> >
> > ...and on the seventh 3-month day, God rested.
> >
> > That is why we Keep the Sabbath Holy by resting for 3 months out of
> > every 21. But the Atheist won't admit it!
> >
> > And another thing. This shows that the words used in the Bible can mean
> > ANYTHING. A day can mean several months. Salvation can mean Damnation.
> > Ya never know.
> you are extending what I said, beyond what I said.... the words in the
> bible are "and there was evening and there was morning and that was the
> nth day" me, I would say that is a pretty obscure definition. I don't
> argue that we call a day=24 hours today.
To the Lord, a day is as a Thousand Years. That is why the Bible agrees
with Science, because you can take "day" and make it into anything you
want.
Jack
No I'm saying that organic reactions don't happen at high temperatures.
>>> And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking
>>> place at low temperatures?
>>
>> Life as we know it couldn't exist at the very high,
>
> How high?
>
>> very low temps
>
> How low?
Within the liquid range for water.
>
>> and large volumetric changes
>
> Are you drunk?
>
>> or very long reaction times
>
> How long?
A few seconds to a few hours, for the most part. We're not forming cavities
in limestone here.
>> seen in physical reactions. I guess it's unusual because
>> earth is the only place it happens.
>
> And every puddle thinks the hole it has found to be a
> perfect fit ...
There's really no call for incredulity here. It's exactly what any intro
level o-chem class will tell you.
_ Prof. Jonez _
How high?
>
>
>>>> And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking
>>>> place at low temperatures?
>>>
>>> Life as we know it couldn't exist at the very high,
>>
>> How high?
>>
>>> very low temps
>>
>> How low?
>
> Within the liquid range for water.
Are you drunk?
>
>>
>>> and large volumetric changes
>>
>> Are you drunk?
>>
>>> or very long reaction times
>>
>> How long?
>
> A few seconds to a few hours, for the most part.
You are drunk, aren't you?
> We're not forming
> cavities in limestone here.
>
>>> seen in physical reactions. I guess it's unusual because
>>> earth is the only place it happens.
>>
>> And every puddle thinks the hole it has found to be a
>> perfect fit ...
>
> There's really no call for incredulity here. It's exactly what any
> intro level o-chem class will tell you.
So let us know when you complete the class.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In alt.religion.christian FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:01:06 +0000, RED wrote:
>
>>> In alt.religion.christian FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis, starting at
>>>> what is a day, people are generally very near sighted so they
>>>> think a day is 12 hours or so, and don't even take into
>>>> consideration that there are 24 hour days for much of the year in
>>>> some part of the planet, so basically a 3 month long day occurs
>>>> even here and now...
>>>
>>> ...and on the seventh 3-month day, God rested.
>>>
>>> That is why we Keep the Sabbath Holy by resting for 3 months out of
>>> every 21. But the Atheist won't admit it!
>>>
>>> And another thing. This shows that the words used in the Bible can
>>> mean ANYTHING. A day can mean several months. Salvation can mean
>>> Damnation. Ya never know.
>
>> you are extending what I said, beyond what I said.... the words in
>> the bible are "and there was evening and there was morning and that
>> was the nth day" me, I would say that is a pretty obscure
>> definition. I don't argue that we call a day=24 hours today.
>
> To the Lord, a day is as a Thousand Years.
Prove it.
> That is why the Bible agrees with Science,
Bullshit.
> because you can take "day" and make it into
> anything you want.
Still bullshit.
Jack
Can you think of an organic process that occurs above 100C or below 0?
Maybe a few degrees but not by much. Cells are filled with water so if the
water freezes or boils it damages the cell membrane.
ca...@optonline.net
And this is the sort of bullshit that science teachers will be
expected to put up with if creationist kids raise the subject in their
classes.
Sla#s
<SNIP>
> What I find amazing in this debate is that evolution, like
> creationism, is just a theory.
No - Creationism is a hypothesis that does not have any theory* to back it
up.
Evolution is a hypothesis that does have a theory to back it up. Several in
fact.
<SNIP>
Slatts
*Testable model.
Deadrat
news:Mv2dnXUtmboT2kTV...@posted.echolabs:
While this may be true, I'm having a hard time finding its relevance.
Could just be me, of course. The fact that human beings must find new
nomenclatures for chemical reactions has nothing to do with my point that
the physical laws that underly all chemistry are adequate to understand
life processes without resorting to the magic spark of an elan vital.
>> And what is "unusual" about organic reactions taking
>> place at low temperatures?
>
> Life as we know it couldn't exist at the very high,
This depends on what we consider life and the meaning of "very high" in
this context. Hyperthermophiles live happily in temperatures above the
boiling point of water.
> very low temps
Numerous pathogens can survive cryogenic storage.
> and
> large volumetric changes or very long reaction times seen in physical
> reactions. I guess it's unusual because earth is the only place it
> happens.
You mean that earth is the only place we know it to have happened. But
that's only because we don't know much about any other place, biologically
speaking.
Blue
> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis, starting at what is
> a day, people are generally very near sighted so they think a day is 12
> hours or so, and don't even take into consideration that there are 24
> hour days for much of the year in some part of the planet, so basically a
> 3 month long day occurs even here and now...
I think what you are dealing with here is the apologists making
the bible fit todays science. And creationsim the latest evolution.
Think not of the day here but of the 7 days in total.
Its invention from Babylon.
The writers of the genesis would have known well about the creationist
stories because the Jewish tribes had been slaves of Egypt and Babylon.
--
Blue
Blue
> so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something out of
> nothing?
We can call ourselves multicellular. We are a build up of communities
of cells. So you can back track to some kind of single celled life form.
And the cell being a coming together of organelles for mutual benefit.
> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is a
> theory, religion is a belief.
The Origin of the species and other books about science are constantly subject
to challage. That is how facts evolve. They are tested.
> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If there
> was something there before, the universe was not started by a big bang
> but by what came before the big bang....
Again this argument seems to come from a relgious stance.
Where ever science stops has got as far as it can for a certain time
there are those who will attempt to stick god or some fictional creation
between the cracks.
It's like a man saying to other that he's seen beasts on the otherside
of te hill. When in fact none of them has seen the otherside of the hill.
Just because someone told you science stops at the big bang it doesn't
mean that this is where you then inject your god.
Cause and Effect. Mass, Energy. E=mc2. So where you have an increase in mass
therefore you can speculate there was previously in its place, Energy.
--
Blue
FriarTuck
> FriarTuck wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:40:24 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Sep, 17:03, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:27:09 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Sep, 13:43, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:19:33 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23 Sep, 12:54, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:21:27 -0600, Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of
>>>>>>>>> Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism
>>>>>>>>> is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to
>>>>>>>>> mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to
>>>>>>>>> demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis
>>>>>>>>> in evidence or rational thought."
>>>>
>>>>>>>> pompous people like that higgins should be kicked in the
>>>>>>>> gutter....
>>>>
>>>> not very Christian of me, sorry, Prof. Higgins perhaps should have
>>>> less of a maginot line/titanic approach....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prof. Reiss keeps an open mind, I think I heard him say on radio
>>>>>>>> he wasn't a literal creationist, and I myself can see the various
>>>>>>>> fossils so disagree with those fundamentalists who say "dinosaurs
>>>>>>>> were not mentioned in the bible so they never existed" for
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>
>>>>>>>> its all how literally you take the story of Genesis,
>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You silly cunt. It's all whether you accept humans
>>>>>>> having occured through evolution and natural selection or through
>>>>>>> being created (there's a hint for you) fully-formed by the Magic
>>>>>>> Sky Pixie. YOu silly cunt.
>>>>
>>>>>> so, what is the spark of life then? does science explain something
>>>>>> out of nothing?
>>>>
>>>>> Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does it attempt to. Which was sort
>>>>> of my point.
>>>>
>>>> well evolution got started from absence of life to presence of life
>>>
>>> No, that's wrong. Evolution doesn't claim to explain the orgiin of
>>> LIFE, merely the Origin Of the Species. I'd have thought the clue
>>> woudl have been in the title, there..
>>>
>>>> somehow, for it to hold true, yet evolution does not explain that
>>>> first organism, nor is there any evidence of it.
>>>
>>> I'd say you don't understand what evolution actually says..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, the higgs boson is
>>>>>> a theory, religion is a belief.
>>>>
>>>>> Correct. Of course, the theories you mention above have wildy
>>>>> differeing amounts of supprting evidence. Oh, and the Higgs Boson is
>>>>> a *prediction* which was generated from a theory..
>>>>
>>>> if its a prediction generated from a theory... ffs its still as
>>>> theoretical as the theory it was based on.... if not more so....
>>>
>>> Is it as theoretical as gravity? Electromagnetism? The thing is, we
>>> are now in a position to test that theory. And if smashing elemental
>>> particles together DOESN'T result in a shower of new subatomic
>>> particles, then the Standard Model will have to be seriously
>>> rethought.
>>>
>>> Similarly, evolution can be observed in the lab, and so far all
>>> available evidence supports evolution (for over 200 years).
>>>
>>> Religions don't tend to abandon tenets like that. THat, to me, is
>>> highly suspicious.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> if the universe started with a big bang, what exactly went bang? If
>>>>>> there was something there before, the universe was not started by a
>>>>>> big bang but by what came before the big bang....
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't try and push religion at someone like they push those
>>>>>> two theories,
>>>>
>>>>> Who are "they"? Which "two theories" - you appear to have only
>>>>> mentioned one (The Big Bang)
>>>>
>>>> If you read my previous post again you should see I mentioned two,
>>>> evolution and big bang (and higgs boson)
>>>
>>> Well, who's "pushing" the Big Bang or the Higgs Boson? Evolution gets
>>> taught in schools for te esame reason electromagnetism, instead of
>>> fairies and pixies is taught in school - it is a testable scientific
>>> theory. That's hardly "pushing".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> but I would ask people to read it (the bible), discuss it with a
>>>>>> knowledgeable scientific christian (not christian scientist...),
>>>>>> and make their own choice.
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible is not a source of scientific explanations.. Not by any
>>>>> stretch of the imagination.
>>>>
>>>> you think God would give the likes of you (or me) the keys of the
>>>> universe... >ho ho... stupid boy. The bible tells the story of the
>>>> tower of babel.
>>>
>>> So why would you recommend discussing the Bible with a scientist,
>>> stupid boy?
>>>
>>>
>>>> not that I say we should stop science... no, on the contrary, science
>>>> of the right sort is good,
>>>
>> evolution a testable theory?
>>
>> I don't think so... who has see a reptile turn into a bird?
>>
>> OK dog breeders for example can change certain limited features, not
>> seen a dog that can fly or breathe using gills yet though....
>>
>> though I don't doubt we could "create" one shortly if not now using
>> genetics....
>
> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
naturally resistant and don't die.
FriarTuck
> Well, you've already agreed that "unnatural" selection by dog breeders
> can change features within a few generations.. imagine what 3.7 billion
> years and some much more stringent criteria for success can do.
key word being... "imagine"....
Deadrat
@newsfe13.ams2:
Scientists have conducted experiments that turned up nylon eating
bacteria. Given that nylon is a synthetic, do you think that "there was
some chemical reaction going on" or do you think that only the bacteria
that already could eat nylon didn't die?
Deadrat
@newsfe13.ams2:
He was being polite. Not my style, I'm afraid. He meant get a clue, study
some biology, and understand what natural selection on a varying genome can
do in 3.7by.
parr...@yahoo.com
Well, you don't have to imagine - there's a whoppipng great fossil
record to support a lot of it.
You've already accepted evolution above, essentially. You just don't
realise it. How can you be so against something you clearly don't
understand?
parr...@yahoo.com
Correct. The environment is selectively breeding them. Well done,
you're now an evolutionist!
Alex W.
"Jack" <furgfu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n6ednSijvvFFz0TV...@posted.echolabs...
> Can you think of an organic process that occurs above 100C or below 0?
> Maybe a few degrees but not by much. Cells are filled with water so if
> the water freezes or boils it damages the cell membrane.
>
Start reading here:
FriarTuck
> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some are
> better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like antibiotics.
> they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference, and eventually
> that particular trait becomes dominant.
its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived because
they were already immune... they are the same cells after, just the other
cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level change... they
have not become two celled after being one celled... they have not
sprouted wings... nor gills...
don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our ocean...
one of the oldest species so I hear... they have not sprouted gills...
they still prefer to breathe air....
walksalone
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>
>> FriarTuck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>>>
>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>>>
>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
>>> naturally resistant and don't die.
>>
>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference,
>> and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>
> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
Because they were able to adapt to changes in their enviroment. AKA
evolution at the cellular level.
> because they were already immune... they are the same cells after,
No, they were not. Not as a population. It's like the ground squirrels
in Califorina, US. They are becoming immune to rattlesnake bites.
Something that in the last century was 100% fatal to the squirrel, & made
the rattlers meal time more pleasant.
> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level
Other cells of their type had to exist, or else there would have been
nothing for them to be patterend on.
> change... they have not become two celled after being one celled...
> they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
Which at that size, would be odd at best. Useless, but odd.
> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our
> ocean... one of the oldest species so I hear...
Cellular organisms, fish & then reptiles IIRC.
> they have not sprouted
> gills... they still prefer to breathe air....
Maybe becasue their prototypes were land animals? & then there is the
question of size, would gills do the job of providing that much oxygen,
or is storage & circulation by absorbtion needed. I suspect that gills
would be a death knell for aquatic mammels, as they woluld for humans.
walksalone who does not play a bioliogist on usenet, nor real life. But
I did receive a basic introdution to the sciences in the 6th-8th grades.
Apparently, that is no longer the case.
Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and,
pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there
are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup,
and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
"I can see the cup on the table," interupted
Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup,"
said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you
don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup
and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"
Plato nodded.
"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this
empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his
thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head
with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the
emptiness'."
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
> > FriarTuck wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>
> >>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>
> >> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>
> >> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
> >> naturally resistant and don't die.
>
> > Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some are
> > better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like antibiotics.
> > they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference, and eventually
> > that particular trait becomes dominant.
>
> its not evolution...
So what IS it, and what IS evolution, then?
> the cells have not changed... just survived because
> they were already immune... they are the same cells after, just the other
> cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level change...
LOL
>they have not become two celled after being one celled... they have not
> sprouted wings... nor gills...
Evolution doesn't claim animals will suddenly sprout wings or gills.
How can you be so opposed to something you are so ignorant about?
>
> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our ocean...
What you don't know will fill legion impressive, hand-tooled A3
volumes...
> one of the oldest species so I hear...
Where did you hear that?! Cetacea aren't a species, by the way
> they have not sprouted gills...
> they still prefer to breathe air....
So?
FriarTuck
you still have to imagine that just because one ancient fossil bears
certain minor similarities to another that one came before the other and
evolved into the other... these things are stretching carbon dating well
beyond its provable extension, and we don't know if radiation was what
wiped out the dinosaurs, and radiation can certainly affect carbon
dating... its a known forging process....
in fact radiation is possible likely cause of species mutations (it is a
known mutator)...
personally I don't rule out evolution in its entirety, but would say you
still need leaps of faith/imagination on a lot of it.
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/
Pakicetid.html
for a start it seems c-14 dating is unreliable on any sample exposed to
water... because the sample would have picked up extra c-14 from the
water... and... fossils that have survived have often survived in a
contaminant preservative...
so... you believe your imagination/other scientists imaginations... and I
accept the theory in part (certainly short term minor dominance can be
obtained as observed in survival and strengthening through cross breeding
of already resistant to antibiotic disease strains) but am not sure of
its true extent...
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:14:50 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> > On 24 Sep, 00:55, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:12:58 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> >> > Well, you've already agreed that "unnatural" selection by dog
> >> > breeders can change features within a few generations.. imagine what
> >> > 3.7 billion years and some much more stringent criteria for success
> >> > can do.
>
> >> key word being... "imagine"....
>
> > Well, you don't have to imagine - there's a whoppipng great fossil
> > record to support a lot of it.
> > You've already accepted evolution above, essentially. You just don't
> > realise it. How can you be so against something you clearly don't
> > understand?
>
> you still have to imagine that just because one ancient fossil bears
> certain minor similarities to another that one came before the other and
> evolved into the other... these things are stretching carbon dating well
> beyond its provable extension, and we don't know if radiation was what
> wiped out the dinosaurs, and radiation can certainly affect carbon
> dating... its a known forging process....
You're just babbling shit here, I'm afraid.
>
> in fact radiation is possible likely cause of species mutations (it is a
> known mutator)...
Well done. You have just admitted the basic element of evolution (cell
mutation) exists.
You have also accepted that in e.g. antibiotic resistant microbes,
mutations that are beneficial survive.
>
> personally I don't rule out evolution in its entirety, but would say you
> still need leaps of faith/imagination on a lot of it.
That's because, as you have clearly shown, you don't really understand
evolution.
>
> http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/
> Pakicetid.html
Whales again, eh?
>
> for a start it seems c-14 dating is unreliable on any sample exposed to
> water... because the sample would have picked up extra c-14 from the
> water... and... fossils that have survived have often survived in a
> contaminant preservative...
hint - carbon dating is not the primary method for ascertaining how
old a fossil is..
>
> so... you believe your imagination/other scientists imaginations...
No, I accept verifiable facts. No leaps of faith, no imagining, just a
verifiable, consistent chain of evidence.
The leaps of faith are all
> and I accept the theory in part (certainly short term minor dominance can be
> obtained as observed in survival and strengthening through cross breeding
You accept it exists on a micro scale - surely it is only logical that
it wodul exist on a macro scale as well? What woudl change the rules?
> of already resistant to antibiotic disease strains) but am not sure of
> its true extent...
Because you don't understand it... (
FriarTuck
> What you don't know will fill legion impressive, hand-tooled A3
> volumes...
difference between us is you are too conceited to realise that what
anyone "doesn't know" would fill the same....
Jack
Oooo... extremophiles are cool. I mean hot.
FriarTuck
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:01:53 +0000, walksalone wrote:
>
>> FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com> news:JuoCk.62118$oR7....@newsfe28.ams2
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>>> FriarTuck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>>>>>
>>>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>>>>>
>>>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
>>>>> naturally resistant and don't die.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
>>>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
>>>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference,
>>>> and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>>>
>>> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
>>
>> Because they were able to adapt to changes in their enviroment. AKA
>> evolution at the cellular level.
>>
>>
no they did not adapt... they had the ability already and so survived
as do the subsequent population when exposed to same...
If you want to call it the theory of "mutation by radiation or
chemicals" rather than the rather grand theory of "evolution" then I
would be more inclined to agree with the hypothesis...
>>> because they were already immune... they are the same cells after,
>>
>> No, they were not. Not as a population. It's like the ground
>> squirrels in Califorina, US. They are becoming immune to rattlesnake
>> bites. Something that in the last century was 100% fatal to the
>> squirrel, & made the rattlers meal time more pleasant.
>>
>>
how could the population "develop" or "evolve" immunity when you state
yourself all (100%) of those exposed to rattlesnake venom died...
therefore they could not have lived to breed in a post-rattler-bite state
to evolve a resistance...
however that there already was a (mutated?) section of the population
with more immunity to snake venom and that gene-set may be starting to
become prevalent by them being the only ones left alive to breed after
others killed by a rattler bite I don't dispute....
>
>>> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level
>>
>> Other cells of their type had to exist, or else there would have been
>> nothing for them to be patterend on.
>>
>>
you missed the point... the other non-immune cells of that type don't
exist any more to breed, because they were killed by the antibiotic...
but the already resistant ones remain alive to breed.... they don't
"evolve" they may have a gene mutation that benefits a local environment
and so they survive.
I don't think they can self mutate or "evolve"... its just random
external mutation that may or may not benefit a species....
>
>
>>> change... they have not become two celled after being one celled...
>>> they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
>>
>> Which at that size, would be odd at best. Useless, but odd.
>>
>>> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our
>>> ocean... one of the oldest species so I hear...
>>
>> Cellular organisms, fish & then reptiles IIRC.
>>
>>> they have not sprouted
>>> gills... they still prefer to breathe air....
>>
>> Maybe becasue their prototypes were land animals? & then there is the
>> question of size, would gills do the job of providing that much oxygen,
>> or is storage & circulation by absorbtion needed. I suspect that gills
>> would be a death knell for aquatic mammels, as they woluld for humans.
>>
>>
gills seem to serve the great white shark quite well... bigger than any
dolphin and a few whales....
>
>> walksalone who does not play a bioliogist on usenet, nor real life.
>> But I did receive a basic introdution to the sciences in the 6th-8th
>> grades. Apparently, that is no longer the case.
>>
>>
my thoughts exactly... stick someone on the telly in front of them and
they will believe anything.....
parr...@yahoo.com
Unlike you, I'm well aware of what I don't know, and try to steer
clear of making silly arguments based on my ignorance...
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:58:41 +0000, FriarTuck wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:01:53 +0000, walksalone wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>
> >>>> FriarTuck wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>
> >>>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>
> >>>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>
> >>>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
> >>>>> naturally resistant and don't die.
>
> >>>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
> >>>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
> >>>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference,
> >>>> and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>
> >>> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
>
> >> Because they were able to adapt to changes in their enviroment. AKA
> >> evolution at the cellular level.
>
> no they did not adapt... they had the ability already and so survived
> as do the subsequent population when exposed to same...
i.e. the population as a whole didn't "have that ability already", but
only those that DID have that mutation survived.
THus, the population "adapted"
>
> If you want to call it the theory of "mutation by radiation or
> chemicals" rather than the rather grand theory of "evolution" then I
> would be more inclined to agree with the hypothesis...
So it's only the naming you object to, not the mechanism? Bizarre...
>
> >>> because they were already immune... they are the same cells after,
>
> >> No, they were not. Not as a population. It's like the ground
> >> squirrels in Califorina, US. They are becoming immune to rattlesnake
> >> bites. Something that in the last century was 100% fatal to the
> >> squirrel, & made the rattlers meal time more pleasant.
>
> how could the population "develop" or "evolve" immunity when you state
> yourself all (100%) of those exposed to rattlesnake venom died...
You seem dreadfully confused about the mechanism. The theory (and
practice, as you admit) is that RANDOM mutations occur, all the time.
They do not occur as a RESULT of a particular threat. However, if the
RANDOM mutation shows itself to be beneficial, such as an immunity to
snake-bite venom, then it is likely to propagate.
> therefore they could not have lived to breed in a post-rattler-bite state
> to evolve a resistance...
Do yourself a favour - READ UP on the theory of evolution so you can
understand what you're arguing against.
>
> however that there already was a (mutated?) section of the population
> with more immunity to snake venom and that gene-set may be starting to
> become prevalent by them being the only ones left alive to breed after
> others killed by a rattler bite I don't dispute....
Then you don't dispute evolution, you just think you do..
>
>
>
> >>> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level
>
> >> Other cells of their type had to exist, or else there would have been
> >> nothing for them to be patterend on.
>
> you missed the point... the other non-immune cells of that type don't
> exist any more to breed, because they were killed by the antibiotic...
> but the already resistant ones remain alive to breed.... they don't
> "evolve" they may have a gene mutation that benefits a local environment
> and so they survive.
Yes, that's pretty much how evolution works.
>
> I don't think they can self mutate or "evolve"... its just random
> external mutation that may or may not benefit a species....
That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
which DO benefit, survive.
What exactly are you arguing against?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> change... they have not become two celled after being one celled...
> >>> they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
>
> >> Which at that size, would be odd at best. Useless, but odd.
>
> >>> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our
> >>> ocean... one of the oldest species so I hear...
>
> >> Cellular organisms, fish & then reptiles IIRC.
>
> >>> they have not sprouted
> >>> gills... they still prefer to breathe air....
>
> >> Maybe becasue their prototypes were land animals? & then there is the
> >> question of size, would gills do the job of providing that much oxygen,
> >> or is storage & circulation by absorbtion needed. I suspect that gills
> >> would be a death knell for aquatic mammels, as they woluld for humans.
>
> gills seem to serve the great white shark quite well... bigger than any
> dolphin and a few whales....
So? A whale isn't a great white shark... Don't make the mistake of
assuming YOU know what is best for an animal in evolutionary terms..
..and clearly, whales evolved from land creatures (see vestigial toes/
fingers in flippers)
> >> walksalone who does not play a bioliogist on usenet, nor real life.
> >> But I did receive a basic introdution to the sciences in the 6th-8th
> >> grades. Apparently, that is no longer the case.
>
> my thoughts exactly... stick someone on the telly in front of them and
> they will believe anything.....
He's disagreeing with you, you know...
ca...@optonline.net
>personally I don't rule out evolution in its entirety, but would say you
>still need leaps of faith/imagination on a lot of it.
Get an education and stop being so stupid.
FriarTuck
> That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
> which DO benefit, survive.
> What exactly are you arguing against?
that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God and that
various "accepted" assumptions about lineage are correct.
for example one of the current "accepted" cetacean ancestors was
originally called "king lizard" when first found...
And most particularly that there is any mechanism of being able to self
adapt to survive...
well, actually, that method of self modification is about to come on
stream with the genies, for those rich enough to afford gene therapy
(targeted modification by chemical or radiation means)....
FriarTuck
right back at you... with bells on....
ca...@optonline.net
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:49 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
>> which DO benefit, survive.
>> What exactly are you arguing against?
>
>that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God and that
>various "accepted" assumptions about lineage are correct.
What's "God" in the real world apart from one of hundreds of similar
and equally irrelevent religious beliefs?
Why do its followers stupidly and rudely talk about it as though it
were real ouitside their religion, to people outside it?
ca...@optonline.net
Evolution is a scientific fact, no matter how many religiously
motivated liars lie about "faith".
FriarTuck
rude? history shows it is you who started calling people stupid.
ca...@optonline.net
>rude? history shows it is you who started calling people stupid.r
So it's not rude and stupid to bring God up where it is utterly
irrelevent, and begs the question?
In the real world outside your religion, to people outside it?
Where it has nothing to do with anything?
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>
>> FriarTuck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>>>
>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>>>
>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
>>> naturally resistant and don't die.
>>
>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the
>> difference, and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>
> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
> because they were already immune... they are the same cells after,
> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor
> level change... they have not become two celled after being one
> celled... they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
You really are a stammering ignoramus, aren't you?
HINT: A T C G
Reality_CheckŠ
Oooo... you're an illiterate retard. I mean stupid.
ca...@optonline.net
He doesn't thnk so.
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:49 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> > That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
> > which DO benefit, survive.
> > What exactly are you arguing against?
>
> that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God
No one has argued that in this thread.. I have specifically stated I
don't see how belief in God and accepting the facts of evolution are
incompatible.
> and that various "accepted" assumptions about lineage are correct.
Be specific.
>
> for example one of the current "accepted" cetacean ancestors was
> originally called "king lizard" when first found...
So?
>
> And most particularly that there is any mechanism of being able to self
> adapt to survive...
What do you mean by "self adapt"? Evolution doesn't claim creatures
mutate as a response to external pressures, for at least the third
time.
>
> well, actually, that method of self modification is about to come on
> stream with the genies, for those rich enough to afford gene therapy
> (targeted modification by chemical or radiation means)....
So you agree that e.g. solar radiation causes cells to muate, you
agree that these mutations can be beneficial, you agree that
beneficial mutations will prosper (as seen with e.g. drug resistant
bacteria)
Well done! You accept evolution. You just don't realise it...
ca...@optonline.net
>On 24 Sep, 15:26, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:49 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>> > That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
>> > which DO benefit, survive.
>> > What exactly are you arguing against?
>>
>> that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God
>
>No one has argued that in this thread.. I have specifically stated I
>don't see how belief in God and accepting the facts of evolution are
>incompatible.
Bringing God into anything in the real world is a bit like
Godwin's law.
It renders further discussion impossible.
As well as demonstrating the person doing it has nothing
to support his case because if they had they would have
used it instead.
And that they are interested in neither discussion nor
explanation.
It is also both stupid and rude.
Stupid because discussion has to be from commonly granted,
shared premises. God is no more part of that than Krishna,
Allah or any of the others.
Rude because those who do it don't care - they're going to
do it anyway.
And that's before things like the often vicious lies used
as ad hominems by believers about those who don't accept it.
The only place it is appropriate, is inside the believer's
religion, for example in their services, prayer meetings etc.
John Baker
Chris is right, I'm afraid. You're totally clueless.
FriarTuck
excuse me, but the topic of this thread is attacking creationists... not
vice versa..
You see, its evilutionists trying to do away with God and replace God
with themselves that is the encroachment on other peoples territory, not
Christians standing up for the faith.
(I am not shooting down the theory of "survival of the luckiest" which
you call evolution... I merely say I still see God in creation)
Deadrat
news:JuoCk.62118$oR7....@newsfe28.ams2:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>
>> FriarTuck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>>>
>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>>>
>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are already
>>> naturally resistant and don't die.
>>
>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the difference,
>> and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>
> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
> because they were already immune...
Nonsense. How do you explain the bacteria that evolved to eat nylon?
You think the cells already had the capacity to metabolize a man-made
fiber?
> they are the same cells after,
No, they aren't. It's called mutation.
> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor level
> change... they have not become two celled after being one celled...
> they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
Of course not.
> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our
> ocean... one of the oldest species so I hear... they have not sprouted
> gills... they still prefer to breathe air....
Older than what do you hear? Whales are mammals. Evolution predicts
that they would *not* "sprout" gills.
ca...@optonline.net
This is the real world outside Christianity, moron. Where the
Christians' God belief is simply irrelevant.
>(I am not shooting down the theory of "survival of the luckiest" which
>you call evolution... I merely say I still see God in creation)
What has God got to do with anything in the real world outside
Christianity?
ca...@optonline.net
Which is a stupid, nasty lie.
>(I am not shooting down the theory of "survival of the luckiest" which
>you call evolution... I merely say I still see God in creation)
Bringing God into anything in the real world is a bit like
Deadrat
news:OwpCk.62231$oR7....@newsfe28.ams2:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:14:50 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> On 24 Sep, 00:55, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:12:58 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>>> > Well, you've already agreed that "unnatural" selection by dog
>>> > breeders can change features within a few generations.. imagine
>>> > what 3.7 billion years and some much more stringent criteria for
>>> > success can do.
>>>
>>> key word being... "imagine"....
>>
>> Well, you don't have to imagine - there's a whoppipng great fossil
>> record to support a lot of it.
>> You've already accepted evolution above, essentially. You just don't
>> realise it. How can you be so against something you clearly don't
>> understand?
>
> you still have to imagine that just because one ancient fossil bears
> certain minor similarities to another that one came before the other
> and evolved into the other...these things are stretching carbon
> dating well beyond its provable extension,
Aren't you embarrassed to be this ignorant? Carbon dating is good for a
few thousand years back and thus isn't used for dating fossils.
> and we don't know if
> radiation was what wiped out the dinosaurs, and radiation can
> certainly affect carbon dating... its a known forging process....
Radiation didn't wipe out the dinosaurs. Please give a reference to
radiation affecting carbon dating. Just my curiosity since carbon dating
isn't used to determine the age of fossils.
> in fact radiation is possible likely cause of species mutations (it is
> a known mutator)...
Radiation changes individuals' genes. Natural selection applied to the
changes causes species to change.
> personally I don't rule out evolution in its entirety, but would say
> you still need leaps of faith/imagination on a lot of it.
Personally? Who cares what you rule in or out? You're an ignoramus.
You need heaps of information and study to understand science. Try it.
You might like it.
> http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/
> Pakicetid.html
>
> for a start it seems c-14 dating is unreliable on any sample exposed
> to water... because the sample would have picked up extra c-14 from
> the water... and... fossils that have survived have often survived in
> a contaminant preservative...
Again. Carbon dating is not used for fossils.
> so... you believe your imagination/other scientists imaginations...
> and I accept the theory in part (certainly short term minor dominance
> can be obtained as observed in survival and strengthening through
> cross breeding of already resistant to antibiotic disease strains) but
> am not sure of its true extent...
>
> http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Wow! Does it hurt to this ignorant?
Deadrat
news:ThqCk.62319$oR7...@newsfe28.ams2:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:58:41 +0000, FriarTuck wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:01:53 +0000, walksalone wrote:
>>
>>> FriarTuck <no...@invalid.com>
>>> news:JuoCk.62118$oR7....@newsfe28.ams2
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:45:14 -0500, L. Raymond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FriarTuck wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:56:21 -0400, Jack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We see populations of bacteria become drug resistant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> good example... but is there some chemical reaction going on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or rather probably selective breeding of the ones that are
>>>>>> already naturally resistant and don't die.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's it exactly. Differences between individuals mean some
>>>>> are better able to adapt to new environmental stresses, like
>>>>> antibiotics. they survive, they reproduce and pass on the
>>>>> difference, and eventually that particular trait becomes dominant.
>>>>
>>>> its not evolution... the cells have not changed... just survived
>>>
>>> Because they were able to adapt to changes in their enviroment. AKA
>>> evolution at the cellular level.
>>>
>>>
>
> no they did not adapt... they had the ability already and so survived
> as do the subsequent population when exposed to same...
Evolution just means that alleles change in frequency over time. Change.
This is an observation, otherwise called a scientific fact.
> If you want to call it the theory of "mutation by radiation or
> chemicals" rather than the rather grand theory of "evolution" then I
> would be more inclined to agree with the hypothesis...
But you're an ignoramus. What difference does it make what you call it?
>>>> because they were already immune... they are the same cells after,
>>>
>>> No, they were not. Not as a population. It's like the ground
>>> squirrels in Califorina, US. They are becoming immune to
>>> rattlesnake bites. Something that in the last century was 100% fatal
>>> to the squirrel, & made the rattlers meal time more pleasant.
>>>
>>>
>
> how could the population "develop" or "evolve" immunity when you state
> yourself all (100%) of those exposed to rattlesnake venom died...
> therefore they could not have lived to breed in a post-rattler-bite
> state to evolve a resistance...
I doubt that 100% of all squirrels in any population were fatally
susceptible to rattlesnake venom, but lets suppose that's true arguendo.
Because not 100% of all squirrels die from rattlesnake bites and because
the squirrel genome changes over time, there will arise by mutation,
squirrels who have some slight resistance to the venom. These are
slightly more likely to survive than their totally susceptible cousins
and thus they pass on their slight resistance. In this population,
mutation and selection will increase the resistance. Do you see the
pattern?
> however that there already was a (mutated?) section of the population
> with more immunity to snake venom and that gene-set may be starting to
> become prevalent by them being the only ones left alive to breed after
> others killed by a rattler bite I don't dispute....
If you don't dispute that ("that" being mutation and selection), then you
don't dispute evolution.
>>>> just the other cells of their type don't exist... so its a minor
>>>> level
>>>
>>> Other cells of their type had to exist, or else there would have
>>> been nothing for them to be patterend on.
>>>
>>>
>
> you missed the point... the other non-immune cells of that type don't
> exist any more to breed, because they were killed by the antibiotic...
> but the already resistant ones remain alive to breed.... they don't
> "evolve" they may have a gene mutation that benefits a local
> environment and so they survive.
What do you think "gene mutation" means?
> I don't think they can self mutate or "evolve"... its just random
> external mutation that may or may not benefit a species....
Individuals mutate; populations evolve.
>>>> change... they have not become two celled after being one celled...
>>>> they have not sprouted wings... nor gills...
>>>
>>> Which at that size, would be odd at best. Useless, but odd.
>>>
>>>> don't know how long the Cetaceans have been swimming around our
>>>> ocean... one of the oldest species so I hear...
>>>
>>> Cellular organisms, fish & then reptiles IIRC.
>>>
>>>> they have not sprouted
>>>> gills... they still prefer to breathe air....
>>>
>>> Maybe becasue their prototypes were land animals? & then there is
>>> the question of size, would gills do the job of providing that much
>>> oxygen, or is storage & circulation by absorbtion needed. I suspect
>>> that gills would be a death knell for aquatic mammels, as they
>>> woluld for humans.
>>>
>>>
> gills seem to serve the great white shark quite well... bigger than
> any dolphin and a few whales....
>>
>>> walksalone who does not play a bioliogist on usenet, nor real life.
>>> But I did receive a basic introdution to the sciences in the 6th-8th
>>> grades. Apparently, that is no longer the case.
>>>
>>>
>
> my thoughts exactly... stick someone on the telly in front of them and
> they will believe anything.....
But have someone study science, and they learn to distinguish nonsense
from its opposite. You should try it. You might like it.
Deadrat
@newsfe28.ams2:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:49 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
>> That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
>> which DO benefit, survive.
>> What exactly are you arguing against?
>
> that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God
Biology is science; it's silent on the question of the existence of God.
> and that various "accepted" assumptions about lineage are correct.
The lineages of various organisms aren't assumptions; they're based on
evidence.
> for example one of the current "accepted" cetacean ancestors was
> originally called "king lizard" when first found...
Some fossils have been misclassified, including some ancestors of
cetaceans. So what? That's what science does. Correct itself when new
evidence is found.
> And most particularly that there is any mechanism of being able to self
> adapt to survive...
Adaptations aren't brought about by any "self." They arise through
mutation, which is a random process.
Deadrat
@newsfe28.ams2:
I'd phrase it as "get an education and stop being so ignorant." Since I
really have no idea how smart you are.
FriarTuck
it seems to me that you exaggerate....
Deadrat
news:_FsCk.62783$oR7....@newsfe28.ams2:
This is entirely a figment of your fevered imagination. Most biologists
are in fact religious.
> (I am not shooting down the theory of "survival of the luckiest" which
> you call evolution... I merely say I still see God in creation)
Who cares what you see in creation? You're an ignoramus.
See whatever you want. What you see might even be compatible with
science.
Deadrat
@newsfe28.ams2:
It's a strange type of cluelessness. You accept the validity of the
mechanisms of evolution (e.g., mutation, natural selection), but you don't
accept evolution.
parr...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:52:13 -0700 (PDT), parri...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On 24 Sep, 15:26, FriarTuck <n...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:05:49 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> >> > That's what evolution is, natural selection ensures that the mutations
> >> > which DO benefit, survive.
> >> > What exactly are you arguing against?
>
> >> that the theory of "evolution" disproves existence of God
>
> >No one has argued that in this thread.. I have specifically stated I
> >don't see how belief in God and accepting the facts of evolution are
> >incompatible.
>
> Bringing God into anything in the real world is a bit like
> Godwin's law.
>
> It renders further discussion impossible.
I'm not sure the statement "I see no contradiction between accepting
evolution an believing in God" renders further discussion impossible,
but I'll take your word for it.
>
> As well as demonstrating the person doing it has nothing
> to support his case because if they had they would have
> used it instead.
>
> And that they are interested in neither discussion nor
> explanation.
The number of evolutionary biologists (who have no argument with
Darwin!) seems to belie that.
I'm not religious in any conventional sense - "Creation" (i.e. the
universe) fascinates, humbles and inspires awe and wonder in me - I
can fully accept that this might be what e.g. a Christian feels and
calls God.
>
> It is also both stupid and rude.
>
> Stupid because discussion has to be from commonly granted,
> shared premises. God is no more part of that than Krishna,
> Allah or any of the others.
>
> Rude because those who do it don't care - they're going to
> do it anyway.
>
> And that's before things like the often vicious lies used
> as ad hominems by believers about those who don't accept it.
>
> The only place it is appropriate, is inside the believer's
> religion, for example in their services, prayer meetings etc.
I can't say I fully agree, but I understand your argument.