It's a day of celebration


yeap

Too bad he isn't alive today. He was a smart man. However, since the advent of the electron microscope and other advancements it has been determined that cells are irreducibly complex. By his own admission and by these facts he would have concluded that his evolutionary theory had been proven false. Darwin wrote that if it could be shown that life was irreducibly complex his theory would be blown out of the water. Science has ceased to be pure. It has been bastardized by political influence and personal agendas. There are plenty of fact that stand in the way of the evolutionary theory and yet the evolutionary theory is still taught as a fact. For some reason, people have a hard time understanding the word theory.
 
Too bad he isn't alive today. He was a smart man. However, since the advent of the electron microscope and other advancements it has been determined that cells are irreducibly complex. By his own admission and by these facts he would have concluded that his evolutionary theory had been proven false. Darwin wrote that if it could be shown that life was irreducibly complex his theory would be blown out of the water. Science has ceased to be pure. It has been bastardized by political influence and personal agendas. There are plenty of fact that stand in the way of the evolutionary theory and yet the evolutionary theory is still taught as a fact. For some reason, people have a hard time understanding the word theory.


Describe Theory--in the scientific sense please--just to make sure we are on the same page.
Thank you.

AFAIK there has been no such determination that any features of any life form are irreducibley complex. To claim so is the delusional apologetics of creationists.
 
Nosreme...if you would...rather than arguing the theory of evolution and how and where it all began...instead of leading me through the evolution of man...please just show me where it stopped and tell me why.
 
Describe Theory--in the scientific sense please--just to make sure we are on the same page.
Thank you.

AFAIK there has been no such determination that any features of any life form are irreducibley complex. To claim so is the delusional apologetics of creationists.

So in science there are laws; law of gravity, thermodynamics etc. they are reproducible, it is witnessed, it can be tested by different people who all come up with the same result. A theory is something that cannot be proven or reproduced using the scientic method of testing and therefor is a theory by the scientific definition which is why it is called the evolutionary theory and not the evolutionary LAW.

and to the next part of your question listen to Darwin himself. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Now you need to research the simple flaggelum. It cannot be broken down into parts as they would sever no function. the simple flaggelum is the classic example of something so fundamental yet complex that statistically mathematics and evolution cannot explain.
this is a link that describes what I am saying from Darwin's owns words and his contemporaries he worked with. Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
Here is a youtube video.

Evolution is a theory, Creation is a theory. We need to teach facts as facts and then theories as theories.
 
(1) Like "missing link," "irreducibly complex" is one of those creationist slogans that has enough of a veneer of scientific and logical legitimacy to appeal to the non-thinking. It popped up in 1996 and has been thoroughly trashed by scientists and most vividly by the very religious judge in the Pennsylvania court case (the Kitzmiller case IIRC) involving teaching of creationism in schools. After an exhaustive and brilliant analysis of the "arguments" and "evidence" for creationism (specifically including "irreducible complexity"), the judge called them "breathtakingly inane." There is no end to the creativity of creationists in their tendency to trot out experts who are anything but and to load their gibberish with references to anti-evolution/pro-creationist books and magazines which have no standing in the legitimate scientific community, and to invoke personalities the way TV commercials invoke celebrities.
(2) The idea is, if it's "irreducibly complex" then that proves that only a creator (i.e., god) could have made it. The leap of logic there is astounding and disgraceful, but that doesn't stop the creationists. They are incredibly and cunningly adept at creating false dilemmas and then "resolving" them by leaping to "therefore god exists" or "therefore evolution is wrong" as if there are no other explanations for the phony issue they themselves constructed.
(3) Darwin referred to what creationists now call "irreducible complexity" as having the potential for undermining the basis for evolutionary theory (here, I used "theory" in the correct scientific sense, not in the sense of "conjecture" as creationists love to disingenuously do) "if he could find it" and added "but I haven't found it yet." Nor have molecular biologists, who--contrary to the warped and disingenuous creationists' yapping--are constantly validating evolution and updating and fine-tuning it. The most exciting developments in this area are in genetics, where scientists are finding remnants of astoundingly earlier developmental forms in DNA of today's plants and animals. (PS: When you talk about cells, are you referring to prokaryotes or eukaryotes?)
(4) It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue this stuff with creationists. Their analytical methodology is pseudo-scientific in that it invariably is accomplished with the goal of affirming creationism or at least debunking evolutionary theory; true scientific analysis is results-neutral and old hypotheses are constantly under attack and re-evaluation. Creationists may really, really believe what they say (which is part of the problem), but they are as absolutely closed to reason as they are compelled to ALWAYS have the last word. Even outside this forum, there is no legitimate debate about evolution vs. creationism--as much as creationists are obsessed with calling it a "debate" because that implies that there are merits to their position. There are no such merits. The case was closed long ago. Creationism lost because it is utterly without basis in science or logic.
(5) Creationists, more than anybody else, make the US the laughingstock of the world when it comes to science, critical thinking, and education. Our kids will pay an intellectual development price through scientifically-illiterate education (creationists have way too much sway with curriculum-designers and book purchasers). The country will pay continue to pay the price in terms of competitiveness, stature, funding, economics, and science-based national defense. (6) PS: Why should Obama try to do the country in (a separate obsession of may internet gun forum types) when religious irrationality will do it, albeit over a slightly longer time?
 
First and foremost, creationism is not and has never been a scientific hypothesis, theory, or idea. Therefore, it should never be taught in a science curriculum.

To correct one's definition of theory:
Theory in the lay person's world is for the most part a hunch or an idea. Unfortunately, when people discuss scientific theories they use this definition to describe them which is a classic straw man argument. A scientific theory is vastly different from the layman's definition. An idea in science does not become a theory until is has been tested by many in the scientific community and generally accepted as the best answer to a problem that the scientific community has developed. However, in science we cannot prove anything to be true. The reason for this is because to prove something it needs to be verified infinitely (an impossibility of mankind). Therefore, a theory can be proven false (needs only one experiment to show something isn't true), but a theory can never be proven to be true. Therefore, in science the term theory holds a lot more weight than what lay people deem the word to mean.

Here are some definition of terms used in science:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now using the scientific definition of theory, the theory of evolution is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world and does incorporate, facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses. The problem is most people think the theory of evolution today is what Darwin stated. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution theory does not claim man came from monkeys; in fact, it actually argues against it. As science has learned more, even species that we thought were ancestors of early man (such as Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal) are found to be ancestors of hominid, not h o m o sapiens. However, one cannot possibly argue against the theory that species do evolve through mutation, survival of the fittest, and adaptation. The current theory, argues those points. Therefore, to debate evolution vs. creationism is a fairly mute point and tries to argue science with religion, a very dangerous subject since one is based on learning through the scientific method and the other is learning through faith. There is no platform for the two sides to debate from.
 
Last edited:
If evolution were a fact we would not be having this debate as everything would have evolved into the highest and most predatory life form (as evolution is all about becoming something better...like a worm becoming a Robin) and we would have all killed and consumed each other. Evolution is not about altruism it is only about survival of the unit.
 
Nosreme...if you would...rather than arguing the theory of evolution and how and where it all began...instead of leading me through the evolution of man...please just show me where it stopped and tell me why.

Why do you assume human evolution stopped? You do know that marco-evolution happens over such a long period of time that it will never be viewed by a single generation, millenia or multiple millenia...? You know this right? On the other hand, micro-evolution... and thus evolution itself is fact. Your perfect example would be caterpillars evolving into butterflys.

However, the existance of evolution does not rule out the existance of God. I'll say that again... the existance of evolution doesn't rule out the existance of God. There is yet another conversation to be had here, and that's whether or not God is in fact a personal God or not. I have reviewed and studied everything I can for a few years on this subject, and I've read the Bible... a few times. I do not believe in a personal God, but being as that science hasn't... and won't ever be able to find the one single source of everything we know... the belief and idea of a God, be it personal or not, can be as valid of an argument as to where everything came from as another theory... depending on that particular argument.

I don't wish to get into any sort of heated debate, I've done that many times here... I'm not going to change my mind or find my faith on an internet forum and those who believe in a personal God will not cease their belief so, let's agree to disagree. Let's discuss the little things here on Earth like the direction of our country and how we're going to either fix it or deal with its consequences. Where we go after we die is something that we will only know with 100% certainty after we do. It doesn't mean one is wrong to believe we go to Heaven or Hell, or if we go nowhere after death... it's just what one chooses to believe.

No harsh feelings alright fellas.
 
Why do you assume human evolution stopped? You do know that marco-evolution happens over such a long period of time that it will never be viewed by a single generation, millenia or multiple millenia...? You know this right? On the other hand, micro-evolution... and thus evolution itself is fact. Your perfect example would be caterpillars evolving into butterflys.

However, the existance of evolution does not rule out the existance of God. I'll say that again... the existance of evolution doesn't rule out the existance of God. There is yet another conversation to be had here, and that's whether or not God is in fact a personal God or not. I have reviewed and studied everything I can for a few years on this subject, and I've read the Bible... a few times. I do not believe in a personal God, but being as that science hasn't... and won't ever be able to find the one single source of everything we know... the belief and idea of a God, be it personal or not, can be as valid of an argument as to where everything came from as another theory... depending on that particular argument.

I don't wish to get into any sort of heated debate, I've done that many times here... I'm not going to change my mind or find my faith on an internet forum and those who believe in a personal God will not cease their belief so, let's agree to disagree. Let's discuss the little things here on Earth like the direction of our country and how we're going to either fix it or deal with its consequences. Where we go after we die is something that we will only know with 100% certainty after we do. It doesn't mean one is wrong to believe we go to Heaven or Hell, or if we go nowhere after death... it's just what one chooses to believe.
P
No harsh feelings alright fellas.

Bob

Not looking for a debate either. You want to review the direction the country is going? Okay...what direction do you want the country to go and why do you want to resist the direction someone else wants the country to go. Are you not setting your own ideas to be morally superior to someone else's ideas? Do you see the point I am attempting to make Bob? Even in the military their can be only one director. That commanding officers direction is superior to all others. Now a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order however that soldier does not know what an unlawful order sounds like unless he has an understanding of a higher moral order of humanity. Of course humans want their own individual sense of moral order to be superior to everyone else's sense of moral order. What you end up with is that the most powerful will force their moral order on the weak. That is the way humans are born. If you think humans are born good I suggest you go hang out with a three year old in a toy store. Humans are not moral period, I sure hope we are not arrogant enough to think we are. Moral behavior is taught so it had to come from somewhere other than a human being.
 
Bob

Not looking for a debate either. You want to review the direction the country is going? Okay...what direction do you want the country to go and why do you want to resist the direction someone else wants the country to go. Are you not setting your own ideas to be morally superior to someone else's ideas? Do you see the point I am attempting to make Bob? Even in the military their can be only one director. That commanding officers direction is superior to all others. Now a soldier is not required to obey an unlawful order however that soldier does not know what an unlawful order sounds like unless he has an understanding of a higher moral order of humanity. Of course humans want their own individual sense of moral order to be superior to everyone else's sense of moral order. What you end up with is that the most powerful will force their moral order on the weak. That is the way humans are born. If you think humans are born good I suggest you go hang out with a three year old in a toy store. Humans are not moral period, I sure hope we are not arrogant enough to think we are. Moral behavior is taught so it had to come from somewhere other than a human being.

You don't know much about me... read some of my many posts over the course of my time spent on this forum and you'll get your answers.
 
I currently am taking College Biology. I am amazed at how much more we know about life than we did when I last studied biology, over 35 years ago. For example, the components that are within cells, no one had any idea how complicated they really are, dozens and dozens of processes constantly going on in each and every cell every second of every minute.

Which just shows me that much more how great God really is, making living things so complicated, and giving us the intelligence to figure it out.
 
You don't know much about me... read some of my many posts over the course of my time spent on this forum and you'll get your answers.

Bob

I wasn't trying to make any implication about you or your thinking process. I was replying to your post. Lots of people have ideas about how things should be, how laws should be made, how behavior should be observed, and so on. I was trying to make the point that we have already been given everything we need to survive. All we have to do is be obedient to the laws that were provided to us by my God. If we do that then we don't need to worry about why no one wants to accept my idea of what right and wrong are thus no concern about the "direction of the country". But until our collective egos stop having temper tantrums why worry about the "direction". It will remain fluid.
 
I currently am taking College Biology. I am amazed at how much more we know about life than we did when I last studied biology, over 35 years ago. For example, the components that are within cells, no one had any idea how complicated they really are, dozens and dozens of processes constantly going on in each and every cell every second of every minute.

Which just shows me that much more how great God really is, making living things so complicated, and giving us the intelligence to figure it out.

None is so blind as he who will not see.
 
Evolution, like gravity, is a fact. Things evolve over time and things are attracted to each other.

The "theory" part of evolution and gravity relate to th underlying nature of the facts, not the facts themselves.

No amount of praying is going to keep you from splatting on the ground if you jump off a 30-story building nor change the evolutionary process.

We can argue the "why" of both evolution and gravity. But you can't deny the fact of evolution or gravity.
 
Evolution, like gravity, is a fact. Things evolve over time and things are attracted to each other
The "theory" part of evolution and gravity relate to th underlying nature of the facts, not the facts themselves.

No amount of praying is going to keep you from splatting on the ground if you jump off a 30-story building nor change the evolutionary process.

We can argue the "why" of both evolution and gravity. But you can't deny the fact of evolution or gravity.

There are plenty of micro evolutionary facts that support change over time: sizes of particular animals, birds beaks etc. There are no facts that support macro-evolution of one species changing into another. Attrached to each other really has no bearing either way on this arguement. To make a direct link that evolution and gravity are on the same factual plane is blindness. "None is so blind as he who will not see."
Not sure what purpose your splatting comment is for other than to insult those who do pray. There is certainly evidence in this world for the power of prayer/meditation/mind over matter however your discussion of the topic certainly doesn't bolster your position just makes you mean and petty. Of course since you are holding to survivial of the fittest it doesn't really matter how you act then does it just so long as you survive. Living for oneself and putting other who don't down is a pretty shallow life.
 
Nosreme...if you would...rather than arguing the theory of evolution and how and where it all began...instead of leading me through the evolution of man...please just show me where it stopped and tell me why.

I can answer this if you don't mind Woody.

Evolution is a phenomenon that arose in concert with the first life forms and has continued to act in concert with all life forms/organism since. It has not stopped, it still is.

Why do you think evolution has "stopped"?
 
In regards to "macro"-evolution, there is none. It is all small changes over time, changes that accumulate when they confer survival benefits and changes that can be or can become dormant or neutral when they have no affect on survival; some changes are terminal in that they cause an inability to survive.


The understanding and knowledge of Evolution as a force acting on living organisms has itself inproved or evolved. We know more now than Darwin did.

Despite this, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation among the lay public.

Prayer is non sequitur to science, Evolution being within the purview of science; as science is non-sequitur to prayer.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top