Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Origin of species is not emperical

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Typical Creationism and evolution of species are the biggest topic today because both have avid defenders that crusade their truth. They will go to any means to prove what they belief is true. Both sides use alot of fantaism and alot of verifiable facts if we are going to start truthfully. I myself have jumped into discussions over my head and used means for evidence that was not my own for such a cause. This is most deffintly the wrong way to approach anything not to mention untruthful.

But there are changes starting not just in the public but in science and religion. The reason is because of the mounting evidence for design. There is just no way that mindless random chances could or would be able to create ordered, complex, artistic, reasoned life in the universe as we have if not for a reasoned purpose.

I have dwelt upon this point because the theory of evolution and its proponets are very apt to intimidate La'man in sciences when in reality no sort of authority exists. We only have what we can see but there are evolutionist and palentologist who go beyond science which it is only a observer into foreshadowing. Yet it needs no expert in any sense to realize that their theories are on the same level with Fantasy.

It took me a long time and many truths and lies to find a firm arguement against evolution because it takes that much thought to find the holes. Im not doing it to have relief for my faith. I need none I have faith and God. I ask God forgiveness for my past wrongs in this subject. Im doing this for each and every evolutionist and every person that believes in it. Im giving those who oppose it and believes in something else words to fight with and evidence to back them up. I seek to verifiy the words of The Holy Bible and my God who inspired the book.

First off, I am not going to deny evolution, it takes place at a small scale for sure we know. This can happen. Over time certain animals group together and over time the group seperates again. And over time they shed and inherit genes from each other. The ones most dominant take over and then over time they change some consider they have evolved. It can happen and it is logical.

So does evolution really happen? Of course it happens in nature. Does it happen on a scale that evolutionist suggest? No it doesn't. In fact there are few lifeforms on this planet that evolve in a scale you can witness. Evolutionist can claim they are right and all the facts supports them.Well some of the facts does support them and some supports other theories.

A man named Darwin had a vision and theory of how all things evolved into everything else. But really this was not his vision first it was Greeks, Romans and Chinese who taught it. In the 19th century, Jean Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first formed theory of evolution. Darwin took it and tested it and wrote a book by the evidence and theory applied.It has not failed ever by the tests provided by evolution and carbon dating. Though the problems of the accuracy of test with one another is not the problem nor is alot of the scientist that conduct them.It is the theory and test themselves.
Following evolutionary biology was the studies of mutation and the variance in natural populations. Then the emergence of palentology with the concept of extinction futher undermined all previous view on nature. This lead to allow more detail into spreading evolution's fantasy as fact with reconstructions of life.The scientific method moved into empirical evidence deriving by experiment unlike philosophy. Thereafter, metaphyics was denoted from science into philosophical enquiries and not empirical.

What is a mutation literally?It is the act or process of changing.

The majority of evolution we see taking place are mutations. Mutations are signifiant to evolution. If you ever glance at some evolutionist material you will here them talk about mutations alot. Why? Because mutation is where and how evolution takes place.

Bacteria mutates at a high rate of speed compared to other organisms.So fast that it defies what most believe about the speed of evolving.Esp when evolutionist say it takes eons of time and happens very slowly.But no matter that its speed is a descrpincy.When these Bacteria mutate they change into nothing much different then the previous bacteria.Then over and over it continues to mutate, still no signifiant change.At the rate of speed the bacteria mutates and the frequency it occurs, it should change into what we call evolved into another species but it does not.

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.
It is called Zombie science and is nothing more than propaganda.It is used to persuade mass opinion inside public,management,realtions,and marketing arenas. Most of the time this type of science seems more plausible than actual science.
The procedures for this dating of species are done by another group of scientist. This part doesnt take much imagination but more biology. You find a animal, you label it by the specifications, and it has its own class or has been put into a previous class of species.

New ideas come forth abundantly from evolution which proves all life has evolved from prior species. But is it new ideas or interchangable results? Fossil records also support Creation even more than evolution. The simple fact that invertebrate to vertbrate fossils records are extremely unclear and untracable leave one in confusion if we take evolution on face value.

Evolution has alot of fact to it, no doubts there, these facts are essential for not only evolution but also the scientist that claim it. What you never here about 'but suspect' is that there is fantasy involved when predictions are made. The side tracking comes from the realiablity of dating techniques. Is dating techniques accurate? They are about as accurate as throwing a dart at a dart board. You will hit a point often, your going to hit the board even more, but hitting the bullseye is rare. Would you put all your soul and belief in something that quite frankly misses more than it hits. Evolution has to miss more than it hits for the fact that procedures are run and most often or not they fail. Failing is everyday life though you got to get back up and try again and they do. They have repeated this procedure for so long that they have became masters at it. Not at hitting the bulleyes but putting so many darts in the board that you do not know where the bulls-eye is anymore. Therefore you can not hit it.

I am not being unscientific at the least. To question the facts regardless of the recordings is in fact the scientific method. Actual scientist would applaud the efforts to understand and to find the truth and not accept theories provided without valid research.
TheAsylum
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

But there are changes starting not just in the public but in science and religion. The reason is because of the mounting evidence for design. There is just no way that mindless random chances could or would be able to create ordered, complex, artistic, reasoned life in the universe as we have if not for a reasoned purpose.


Evolution is not 'random chance'. I think your issue with evolutionary theory - or rather common descent - is that you really don't understand it.

I have dwelt upon this point because the theory of evolution and its proponets are very apt to intimidate La'man in sciences when in reality no sort of authority exists. We only have what we can see but there are evolutionist and palentologist who go beyond science which it is only a observer into foreshadowing. Yet it needs no expert in any sense to realize that their theories are on the same level with Fantasy.


This is like saying there is no authority in medicine, therefore when you have a gaping wound, you should go to your car mechanic.

It took me a long time and many truths and lies to find a firm arguement against evolution because it takes that much thought to find the holes. Im not doing it to have relief for my faith. I need none I have faith and God. I ask God forgiveness for my past wrongs in this subject. Im doing this for each and every evolutionist and every person that believes in it. Im giving those who oppose it and believes in something else words to fight with and evidence to back them up. I seek to verifiy the words of The Holy Bible and my God who inspired the book.


You do hold your position because of your faith. What books have you read on evolution?

First off, I am not going to deny evolution, it takes place at a small scale for sure we know. This can happen. Over time certain animals group together and over time the group seperates again. And over time they shed and inherit genes from each other. The ones most dominant take over and then over time they change some consider they have evolved. It can happen and it is logical.


This is not really an accurate picture of natural selection, but whatever. What prevents the accumulation of these small scale changes from becoming a 'big scale change'?

So does evolution really happen? Of course it happens in nature. Does it happen on a scale that evolutionist suggest? No it doesn't. In fact there are few lifeforms on this planet that evolve in a scale you can witness. Evolutionist can claim they are right and all the facts supports them.Well some of the facts does support them and some supports other theories.


I don't even know what you are trying to say here.

A man named Darwin had a vision and theory of how all things evolved into everything else. But really this was not his vision first it was Greeks, Romans and Chinese who taught it. In the 19th century, Jean Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first formed theory of evolution. Darwin took it and tested it and wrote a book by the evidence and theory applied.It has not failed ever by the tests provided by evolution and carbon dating. Though the problems of the accuracy of test with one another is not the problem nor is alot of the scientist that conduct them.It is the theory and test themselves.

Actually the ancient Greeks supported the notion that life, as well as everything else, had been around as it is, unchanged, for eternity. Or at least, that's what I recall from reading Aristotle.

Darwin came up with natural selection and, as a point of fact, he incorporated some of Lamark's views into the mechanism of change. This is why the modern synthesis was such a big deal - it over through the incorrect notions of Darwin.

The majority of evolution we see taking place are mutations. Mutations are signifiant to evolution. If you ever glance at some evolutionist material you will here them talk about mutations alot. Why? Because mutation is where and how evolution takes place.

I have no idea what you mean by 'evolution' here. You seem to be mangling the term in every paragraph.

I didn't read the rest, I don't think you have a firm grip on what you reject. I think this is why you reject it.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:42:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any problem with this being posted on debateorg.blogspot.com site blog?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There is just no way that mindless random chances could or would be able to create ordered, complex, artistic, reasoned life in the universe as we have if not for a reasoned purpose.

Well then, it's a good thing that abiogenesis and evolution aren't mindless random chance, eh?

First off, I am not going to deny evolution, it takes place at a small scale for sure we know. This can happen. Over time certain animals group together and over time the group seperates again. And over time they shed and inherit genes from each other. The ones most dominant take over and then over time they change some consider they have evolved. It can happen and it is logical.

So where is the "cutoff" exactly? Note: the attitude you're taking now would have been completely denied by Creationists just 60 short years ago. Did the BIble change during that time? Did God look at the Scope Trial transcript and change some things?

Bacteria mutates at a high rate of speed compared to other organisms.So fast that it defies what most believe about the speed of evolving.Esp when evolutionist say it takes eons of time and happens very slowly.

The fact that bacteria show mutations very quickly is pretty simple: they reproduce quickly. The only people for whom this is some "mystery" are those who, oh, say, never set foot in a science classroom since 3rd grade.

Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Is this why they PUBLISH, PUBLISH, PUBLISH? Reams and reams and reams of data and publications. It's got to be easy to hide information when you publish everything.

It is called Zombie science and is nothing more than propaganda.It is used to persuade mass opinion inside public,management,realtions,and marketing arenas. Most of the time this type of science seems more plausible than actual science.

"Zombie Science"! Love it! With a name like that can you blame ANYONE for not wanting to do "actual" science if they can be doing ZOMBIE science?

Fossil records also support Creation even more than evolution. The simple fact that invertebrate to vertbrate fossils records are extremely unclear and untracable leave one in confusion if we take evolution on face value.

Wellll...there is quite a bit we know about early "chordates". There's even a little bugger from the Burgess Shale called a Pikaia that has a "proto-notochord", sort of a stepping stone to a full notochord (still under debate as I understand it), but it is hardly beyond the pale of understanding.

I am not being unscientific at the least. To question the facts regardless of the recordings is in fact the scientific method. Actual scientist would applaud the efforts to understand and to find the truth and not accept theories provided without valid research.

Actual scientists (again as opposed to "Zombie Scientists") would indeed applaud efforts to understand and find the truth. But just because someone doesn't know the details behind something doesn't mean that every thing that belches forth from their imagination is a meaningful step on the path to truth.

Just questioning is good, but questioning without learning or worshipping one's own ignorance as a virtue is not really "actual science" either (may not eve be "Zombie Science")
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 11:42:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Any problem with this being posted on debateorg.blogspot.com site blog?

No
TheAsylum
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:36:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It doesn't work like that. You can't accept the scientific method when it comes to gravity, computers, internet, medicine, eyeglasses and carbonated root beer, but then disregard it when your particular choice of creation myth is threatened.

You claim to know what you're talking about with respect to evolution? Fine: summarize the theory of evolution in fifty words or less.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 12:53:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:25:42 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Thaumaturgy, official science bada$$ of DDO.

I fear you are being overly kind. But I do plan on starting an outlaw motorcycle gang of scientists.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 7:52:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 12:53:28 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:25:42 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Thaumaturgy, official science bada$$ of DDO.

I fear you are being overly kind. But I do plan on starting an outlaw motorcycle gang of scientists.

That is super badass.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 8:19:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 7:52:33 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:53:28 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:25:42 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Thaumaturgy, official science bada$$ of DDO.

I fear you are being overly kind. But I do plan on starting an outlaw motorcycle gang of scientists.

That is super badass.

And this can be the emblem for the back of the motorcycle jacket/lab coats:

http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 8:33:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 8:19:09 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/26/2012 7:52:33 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:53:28 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:25:42 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Thaumaturgy, official science bada$$ of DDO.

I fear you are being overly kind. But I do plan on starting an outlaw motorcycle gang of scientists.

That is super badass.

And this can be the emblem for the back of the motorcycle jacket/lab coats:

http://www.debate.org...

Lmfao, I would wear that in a second.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:15:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Typical Creationism and evolution of species are the biggest topic today because both have avid defenders that crusade their truth.
Might I remind you that one side does however try to base on an objective criteria, not simply of belief or faith.
. There is just no way that mindless random chances could or would be able to create ordered, complex, artistic, reasoned life in the universe as we have if not for a reasoned purpose.

Evolution shouldn't be designated as "mindless random chances". Its mechanisms--natural selection, mutation, speciation, and so forth, are not random; obvious factors that help make it so include the very factors that influence the survival and reproduction success of living organisms--proper adaption to niches due to traits produced by their genes, for example.

First off, I am not going to deny evolution, it takes place at a small scale for sure we know. This can happen. Over time certain animals group together and over time the group seperates again. And over time they shed and inherit genes from each other. The ones most dominant take over and then over time they change some consider they have evolved. It can happen and it is logical.
How can you deny evolution and yet say that our theories are on the same level of "Fantasy"?

As regard to the depiction, one of the supposed failures--of yours--is to include the very fact that natural selection generally relies on pressure within the biological system for change and modification. You don't seem to account that, though.


Does it happen on a scale that evolutionist suggest? No it doesn't. In fact there are few lifeforms on this planet that evolve in a scale you can witness.
So you believe that evolution occurs on a smaller scale than generally described, then?

A man named Darwin had a vision and theory of how all things evolved into everything else......
Those were precursors, not forms of the first theory. General principles invested into the evolutionary theory were present. For example, these assumed the form of theories that relied on descent from living things, of teological understandings of natural forms, and so forth. Research on the modifications induced during reproduction and theories of common descent or "degeneration" were present throughout the course, but were neither full-fledged forms of evolutionary theory nor distinct on their own.

Lamarck's theory, however, IS a full-fledged evolutionary theory and did advance the field of organic evolution, I suppose.:)

What is a mutation literally?It is the act or process of changing.
Eh, I would argue that mutations are the changes themselves, not processes--in DNA/sequences...

The majority of evolution we see taking place are mutations. Mutations are signifiant to evolution. If you ever glance at some evolutionist material you will here them talk about mutations alot. Why? Because mutation is where and how evolution takes place.
Remember though that natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, and so forth are also mechanisms as well.

Bacteria mutates at a high rate of speed compared to other organisms.So fast that it defies what most believe about the speed of evolving.Esp when evolutionist say it takes eons of time and happens very slowly.But no matter that its speed is a descrpincy.When these Bacteria mutate they change into nothing much different then the previous bacteria.Then over and over it continues to mutate, still no signifiant change.At the rate of speed the bacteria mutates and the frequency it occurs, it should change into what we call evolved into another species but it does not.
Mutation and changes in successive generation are reliant on reproduction, as stated before by others.

Bacteria conduct asexual reproduction, which-compared to other species-allows offspring to arise from its parents very quickly--without the needed cell division, fertilization, and other processes. In particular, bacterial conduct themselves through binary fusion that allows the DNA to replicate itself into daughter cells.
In other words, bacteria obviously conduct reproduction much faster than other species, thus explaining its relative quick mutation rate...

I won't respond to the whole notion about "Zombie science"; I find it odd that you accept evolution as credible but disparage evocations of it, to be honest.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote
I am not being unscientific at the least. To question the facts regardless of the recordings is in fact the scientific method. Actual scientist would applaud the efforts to understand and to find the truth and not accept theories provided without valid research.

The scientific method is, in general, a method of investigating phenomena. It establishes a base on which we operate--(empirical evidence). Senseless questioning of "accepted facts" prove futile and is a ridiculous concept especially in light of your comment on the absence of "valid research".

It would seem odd that you say so since research, experimentation, and so forth are the very pillars on which theories are constructed and accepted in the scientific community.

The senseless questioning you advocate is simply nonsense. It is as you say--and ohers, a Zombie science. I suppose we can all use our own personal beliefs as a motive and question theories contrary to our own.

If you wish to question a theory, there should be legitimate reasons--which you haven't provided, to be honest......
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:25:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't want to sound arrogant, but these are basic principles.....of science...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:36:07 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It doesn't work like that. You can't accept the scientific method when it comes to gravity, computers, internet, medicine, eyeglasses and carbonated root beer, but then disregard it when your particular choice of creation myth is threatened.

You claim to know what you're talking about with respect to evolution? Fine: summarize the theory of evolution in fifty words or less.

Why? Proves nothing im concerned with. I can believe what I want and accept what I want. Hopefully science and government has not prevented that yet. You continue to rely on just your hands, eyes, and ears. I rely on my spirit and faith. May God bless you.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 6:58:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?

I do not deny your many years of study. I do not deny your years of work in your field. I do not deny you highly skilled. I can not deny you have all the expertise to make all the claims you make.
What I do question is your trained thought processes.
I do question the denial of man's intelligence, virtue, law, and common desined dominace over the earth. This is easily seen but denied.
I do question Government bodies that far exceed your rank in the field you study and thier agenda.
I find it repulsive that thousands of years of record is thrown as fantasy as if that has been proven.
That the hard pressed subject to claim those who have faith and belief over science means they are inferior mentally and logically, when no such thing is true.
That science denies spiritualism because it is outside physical testing so because of that it is impossible and not real.Which is obsured.
Science its self claims authority in realms it can not claim. As long ages, Spirituality, and the capabilites beyond the scientific scope to visually and physically observe.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 7:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 6:47:55 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:36:07 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It doesn't work like that. You can't accept the scientific method when it comes to gravity, computers, internet, medicine, eyeglasses and carbonated root beer, but then disregard it when your particular choice of creation myth is threatened.

You claim to know what you're talking about with respect to evolution? Fine: summarize the theory of evolution in fifty words or less.

Why? Proves nothing im concerned with. I can believe what I want and accept what I want. Hopefully science and government has not prevented that yet. You continue to rely on just your hands, eyes, and ears. I rely on my spirit and faith. May God bless you.

The question isnt what you rely on, its whether the things you rely on are reliable.

Spirit and faith are highly unreliable. Hands, eyes, ears, are far more reliable. Thats all that matters.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 6:58:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?

I do not deny your many years of study. I do not deny your years of work in your field. I do not deny you highly skilled. I can not deny you have all the expertise to make all the claims you make.
What I do question is your trained thought processes.

Ive told you this many times before. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims accept evolution.

What about their trained thought process? Dont they have faith in religion just like you?

I do question the denial of man's intelligence, virtue, law, and common desined dominace over the earth. This is easily seen but denied.

No evolutionist is denying any of those. None of those have to necessarily be associated with God. Human intelligence, virtue and common design is explained by evolution. The laws of nature are explained by physics.

I do question Government bodies that far exceed your rank in the field you study and thier agenda.

You mean the government who is largely made of christians, who are calling for schools to teach the controversy?

The governors, who put their hands up when asked if they deny evolution?

I find it repulsive that thousands of years of record is thrown as fantasy as if that has been proven.

Again, christian evolutionists exist.

But even if that werent the case, no, no evolutionist is claiming that the entire bible is false. They are claiming, and have proven, that some parts of the bible are necessarily false because they violate the laws of physics.

Its the same reason why we do not accept the Quran, or Baghvad Gita, as necessarily scientifically true.

That the hard pressed subject to claim those who have faith and belief over science means they are inferior mentally and logically, when no such thing is true.

Again, christian evolutionists exist. Ken Miller. Francis collins.

That science denies spiritualism because it is outside physical testing so because of that it is impossible and not real.Which is obsured.

Did you mean Absurd, or Observed?

In any case, no, science isnt claiming that spiritualism is impossible and not real. What its saying, is that until it can be demonstrated, we will not accept the claims of spiritualism as true.

Science its self claims authority in realms it can not claim. As long ages, Spirituality, and the capabilites beyond the scientific scope to visually and physically observe.

Actually, yes, sciene can claim, and back those claims up with actual evidence. Thats all that matters in science, is the evidence. Demonstrable, verifiable evidence.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:53:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 7:54:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2012 6:47:55 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:36:07 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It doesn't work like that. You can't accept the scientific method when it comes to gravity, computers, internet, medicine, eyeglasses and carbonated root beer, but then disregard it when your particular choice of creation myth is threatened.

You claim to know what you're talking about with respect to evolution? Fine: summarize the theory of evolution in fifty words or less.

Why? Proves nothing im concerned with. I can believe what I want and accept what I want. Hopefully science and government has not prevented that yet. You continue to rely on just your hands, eyes, and ears. I rely on my spirit and faith. May God bless you.

The question isnt what you rely on, its whether the things you rely on are reliable.

Spirit and faith are highly unreliable. Hands, eyes, ears, are far more reliable. Thats all that matters.

so your hands, eyes, ears, are not ever wrong?
I just asl because my spirituality has never steered me wrong. I steer mu=yself wrong when I refuse it.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:58:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 8:04:21 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2012 6:58:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?

I do not deny your many years of study. I do not deny your years of work in your field. I do not deny you highly skilled. I can not deny you have all the expertise to make all the claims you make.
What I do question is your trained thought processes.

Ive told you this many times before. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims accept evolution.

What about their trained thought process? Dont they have faith in religion just like you?

I do question the denial of man's intelligence, virtue, law, and common desined dominace over the earth. This is easily seen but denied.

No evolutionist is denying any of those. None of those have to necessarily be associated with God. Human intelligence, virtue and common design is explained by evolution. The laws of nature are explained by physics.


I do question Government bodies that far exceed your rank in the field you study and thier agenda.

You mean the government who is largely made of christians, who are calling for schools to teach the controversy?

The governors, who put their hands up when asked if they deny evolution?

I find it repulsive that thousands of years of record is thrown as fantasy as if that has been proven.

Again, christian evolutionists exist.

But even if that werent the case, no, no evolutionist is claiming that the entire bible is false. They are claiming, and have proven, that some parts of the bible are necessarily false because they violate the laws of physics.

Its the same reason why we do not accept the Quran, or Baghvad Gita, as necessarily scientifically true.

That the hard pressed subject to claim those who have faith and belief over science means they are inferior mentally and logically, when no such thing is true.

Again, christian evolutionists exist. Ken Miller. Francis collins.

That science denies spiritualism because it is outside physical testing so because of that it is impossible and not real.Which is obsured.

Did you mean Absurd, or Observed?

In any case, no, science isnt claiming that spiritualism is impossible and not real. What its saying, is that until it can be demonstrated, we will not accept the claims of spiritualism as true.

Science its self claims authority in realms it can not claim. As long ages, Spirituality, and the capabilites beyond the scientific scope to visually and physically observe.

Actually, yes, sciene can claim, and back those claims up with actual evidence. Thats all that matters in science, is the evidence. Demonstrable, verifiable evidence.

You stay with science. I stay in faith and truth. Also any christian that believes in evolution denies thier own Bible and faith.Point blank. Any other religion can do whatever they please. I am not inside a religion. I am in faith in God of the Bible. I do not take typical dogma. Nor your dogma. Again science can make no such claims and if they do are straight out liars.
TheAsylum
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:14:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me start off by saying that, yes, I do believe in evolution.

But, I also know that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory. Evolution is based on logic more than science since the theory didn't go through the rigors of the Scientific Method. Also, such a theory can make no predictions of the future to test itself against. This makes any aspect of how species evolved unfalsifiable, and, therefore not scientific.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:55:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:14:38 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Let me start off by saying that, yes, I do believe in evolution.

But, I also know that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory.
Evolution is based on logic more than science since the theory didn't go through the rigors of the Scientific Method.
I find this rather absurd, to be honest. Evolution has been subject to multiple scientific experiments that demonstrate examples of speciation and is based on information, observation, and conclusions derived from experiments.

Then there is the obvious element of falsibility in the evolutionary model...
Also, such a theory can make no predictions of the future to test itself against. This makes any aspect of how species evolved unfalsifiable, and, therefore not scientific.

Ridiculous. I find it odd that you say that evolution can " make no predictions of the future" if knowledge of former trends of evolution, as well as developments, can lead to predictions about the status of the fossil record or of the state of organisms.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:58:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:14:38 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Let me start off by saying that, yes, I do believe in evolution.
Why believe in an unscientific theory/principle?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:14:38 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Let me start off by saying that, yes, I do believe in evolution.

But, I also know that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory. Evolution is based on logic more than science since the theory didn't go through the rigors of the Scientific Method. Also, such a theory can make no predictions of the future to test itself against. This makes any aspect of how species evolved unfalsifiable, and, therefore not scientific.

We use the theory in agriculture, medicine, etc. I have no idea how you can claim its unfalsifiable. You do realize that the theory is what explains the change (speciation, common descent, universal ancestry) and is not the chang itself, right?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:07:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:53:53 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/27/2012 7:54:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2012 6:47:55 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 10:36:07 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:31:28 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/25/2012 6:25:26 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

The realities to the evolution theory is the that laman will not and most instances can not understand the procedures to conclude evolution is a fact or not. This practice was used in acient civilzations to control people. Have knowledge and keep it hidden and therefore the people need you. Most of these procedures are conducted by evolutionary scientist. This is very essential for science. It is easy to manipulate procedures and make calculations go your way when no one knows the difference esp. when most accept what they are told. This has been a well documented occurance in history by regimes, religion, laws and now science.

Go to a four year college. Get a bachelor's degree in biology. Then enroll in graduate school, and go through the graduate program to get your masters and doctorate in evolutionary science, which usually takes about five years. You'll have a PhD, and will be able to understand, study and teach evolution just like the "big boys."

I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you don't wish to do this -- you have other priorities in your life, you'd rather spend the money on something else, you don't want to get student loans, et cetera, et cetera. That's fine. That's not the point. The point is you CAN do it. ANYONE can do it. There's no "secret society," no "forbidden knowledge" here. The evidence for evolution is in those thick leather-bound journals in biology that are kept in any decent-sized college or university in the country. If you don't understand what these journals are saying, that's your fault. I don't mean a MORAL fault; I mean it's your choice. Science communicators like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson do as much as they can in layman's terms, but beyond that, you have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It doesn't work like that. You can't accept the scientific method when it comes to gravity, computers, internet, medicine, eyeglasses and carbonated root beer, but then disregard it when your particular choice of creation myth is threatened.

You claim to know what you're talking about with respect to evolution? Fine: summarize the theory of evolution in fifty words or less.

Why? Proves nothing im concerned with. I can believe what I want and accept what I want. Hopefully science and government has not prevented that yet. You continue to rely on just your hands, eyes, and ears. I rely on my spirit and faith. May God bless you.

The question isnt what you rely on, its whether the things you rely on are reliable.

Spirit and faith are highly unreliable. Hands, eyes, ears, are far more reliable. Thats all that matters.

so your hands, eyes, ears, are not ever wrong?
I just asl because my spirituality has never steered me wrong. I steer mu=yself wrong when I refuse it.

I said far more reliable, not perfect. There isnt anything in this world that is perfectly reliable, 100% of the time.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:12:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:58:14 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/27/2012 8:04:21 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2012 6:58:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?

I do not deny your many years of study. I do not deny your years of work in your field. I do not deny you highly skilled. I can not deny you have all the expertise to make all the claims you make.
What I do question is your trained thought processes.

Ive told you this many times before. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims accept evolution.

What about their trained thought process? Dont they have faith in religion just like you?

I do question the denial of man's intelligence, virtue, law, and common desined dominace over the earth. This is easily seen but denied.

No evolutionist is denying any of those. None of those have to necessarily be associated with God. Human intelligence, virtue and common design is explained by evolution. The laws of nature are explained by physics.


I do question Government bodies that far exceed your rank in the field you study and thier agenda.

You mean the government who is largely made of christians, who are calling for schools to teach the controversy?

The governors, who put their hands up when asked if they deny evolution?

I find it repulsive that thousands of years of record is thrown as fantasy as if that has been proven.

Again, christian evolutionists exist.

But even if that werent the case, no, no evolutionist is claiming that the entire bible is false. They are claiming, and have proven, that some parts of the bible are necessarily false because they violate the laws of physics.

Its the same reason why we do not accept the Quran, or Baghvad Gita, as necessarily scientifically true.

That the hard pressed subject to claim those who have faith and belief over science means they are inferior mentally and logically, when no such thing is true.

Again, christian evolutionists exist. Ken Miller. Francis collins.

That science denies spiritualism because it is outside physical testing so because of that it is impossible and not real.Which is obsured.

Did you mean Absurd, or Observed?

In any case, no, science isnt claiming that spiritualism is impossible and not real. What its saying, is that until it can be demonstrated, we will not accept the claims of spiritualism as true.

Science its self claims authority in realms it can not claim. As long ages, Spirituality, and the capabilites beyond the scientific scope to visually and physically observe.

Actually, yes, sciene can claim, and back those claims up with actual evidence. Thats all that matters in science, is the evidence. Demonstrable, verifiable evidence.

You stay with science. I stay in faith and truth. Also any christian that believes in evolution denies thier own Bible and faith.Point blank. Any other religion can do whatever they please. I am not inside a religion. I am in faith in God of the Bible. I do not take typical dogma. Nor your dogma. Again science can make no such claims and if they do are straight out liars.

If you care about truth, if you care whether your beliefs are true, if you care about having the most true beliefs, and the least possible false beliefs, then science, reason, logic, these things have been demonstrated as being the most reliable source of separating fact from fiction. There is nothing in human history that has come close to determining Truth from fiction, than science.

Faith, on the other hand, has been demonstrated countless times to be a poor measure of truth. Faith can lead you to anywhere, and justify any action. Faith leads you to doing atrocities in your gods name whether it be Moses who went around slaughtering the women and children except for the virgin girls who he allowed his soldiers to rape, or the suicide bombers who flew planes into buildings.

You dont care about truth, all you care about is faith. I care about truth, which is why i care about science, and use science.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:38:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 1:12:28 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:58:14 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/27/2012 8:04:21 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2012 6:58:36 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/26/2012 12:59:10 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:12 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I agree with what you said somewhat. But it is you and society at large who think what is taught in colleges is what you should know about. There is much more beyond in scientific method but that is outside your domain. But because someone has not got the education you have they somehow do not what they are talking about. I know exzactly what Im talking about. As you assume I am brainwashed, I am. But so are you and you can not admit it.

It is always interesting how these discussions go. Unfortunately for those without even the beginnings of the discipline necessary it is almost MANDATORY that one get some training in scientific topics.

It is easy to pontificate about what science is and isn't from the "cheap seats", but if you are down on the field it is a lot more complex and requires a lot more training.

When I see the kind of rambling commentary you are making and your ex cathedra claims about how to do real science, I think about doughy middle-aged American men sitting in the bleachers at a RedSox game figuring how they'd do so much better than the current guys on the field and how they'd do it.

No denies that they have something of an understanding of the game but that does not mean they can play it without any sort of physical training or years learning the basics of actually being out there with a glove on or bat in hand.

The most annoying thing to most of us who worked hard to get our careers in science is to be told by people who demonstrably have at best a minimal grasp of detailed science how we are doing it wrong.

Imagine how that feels.

Can I ask: what do you do for a living? May I be so kind as to critique YOU in what YOU do?

I do not deny your many years of study. I do not deny your years of work in your field. I do not deny you highly skilled. I can not deny you have all the expertise to make all the claims you make.
What I do question is your trained thought processes.

Ive told you this many times before. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims accept evolution.

What about their trained thought process? Dont they have faith in religion just like you?

I do question the denial of man's intelligence, virtue, law, and common desined dominace over the earth. This is easily seen but denied.

No evolutionist is denying any of those. None of those have to necessarily be associated with God. Human intelligence, virtue and common design is explained by evolution. The laws of nature are explained by physics.


I do question Government bodies that far exceed your rank in the field you study and thier agenda.

You mean the government who is largely made of christians, who are calling for schools to teach the controversy?

The governors, who put their hands up when asked if they deny evolution?

I find it repulsive that thousands of years of record is thrown as fantasy as if that has been proven.

Again, christian evolutionists exist.

But even if that werent the case, no, no evolutionist is claiming that the entire bible is false. They are claiming, and have proven, that some parts of the bible are necessarily false because they violate the laws of physics.

Its the same reason why we do not accept the Quran, or Baghvad Gita, as necessarily scientifically true.

That the hard pressed subject to claim those who have faith and belief over science means they are inferior mentally and logically, when no such thing is true.

Again, christian evolutionists exist. Ken Miller. Francis collins.

That science denies spiritualism because it is outside physical testing so because of that it is impossible and not real.Which is obsured.

Did you mean Absurd, or Observed?

In any case, no, science isnt claiming that spiritualism is impossible and not real. What its saying, is that until it can be demonstrated, we will not accept the claims of spiritualism as true.

Science its self claims authority in realms it can not claim. As long ages, Spirituality, and the capabilites beyond the scientific scope to visually and physically observe.

Actually, yes, sciene can claim, and back those claims up with actual evidence. Thats all that matters in science, is the evidence. Demonstrable, verifiable evidence.

You stay with science. I stay in faith and truth. Also any christian that believes in evolution denies thier own Bible and faith.Point blank. Any other religion can do whatever they please. I am not inside a religion. I am in faith in God of the Bible. I do not take typical dogma. Nor your dogma. Again science can make no such claims and if they do are straight out liars.

If you care about truth, if you care whether your beliefs are true, if you care about having the most true beliefs, and the least possible false beliefs, then science, reason, logic, these things have been demonstrated as being the most reliable source of separating fact from fiction. There is nothing in human history that has come close to determining Truth from fiction, than science.

Faith, on the other hand, has been demonstrated countless times to be a poor measure of truth. Faith can lead you to anywhere, and justify any action. Faith leads you to doing atrocities in your gods name whether it be Moses who went around slaughtering the women and children except for the virgin girls who he allowed his soldiers to rape, or the suicide bombers who flew planes into buildings.

You dont care about truth, all you care about is faith. I care about truth, which is why i care about science, and use science.

Again why debate at all? You are convinced in science. You will never convert a true faithful believer in God, who exsperiences him.
Does science know everything?
Will science know everything?
If science does not know everything or will never know, How do they know?
Science though valuable to a point, is become propaganda, for Non-Bible believers. You can preach and preach but your knowledge is not important to me nor any mans unless that man is filled with the Holy Ghost as I am.
TheAsylum