Yeah, beneficial mutations could never happen.
:thumbsup: for actually looking at the science instead of calling people sheep.
And honestly, there's nothing for science to disprove about creationism. It's not science in the first place.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Science: "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
How is it real science? Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so? Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?
If you look at the forces of change claimed by evolution none of them account for actual "evolution" except mutation and that's where I call BS. The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:
Apolipoprotein A-I Milano is a mutant form, which was originally found in a small number of individuals in Italy who appear to be protected from cholesterol-related heart disease.
:thumbsup: for actually looking at the science instead of calling people sheep.Compared to control, wild type apo A-I gene transfer led to about a 25 percent decrease in the amount of plaque buildup in the animals' aortas and other vessels. Apo A-I Milano gene transfer resulted in a 65 percent reduction.
That's the wonderful thing about using an omnipotent creator to "explain" the world - no matter what evidence you turn up, an omnipotent creator could have done it. If scientists had dug up early bird fossils that were related to fish instead of birds, you'd be saying the exact same thing. And if they'd found that half of the early bird fossils were related to mammals while the other half came from reptiles and then these two lines merged, you'd be claiming that your omnipotent creator did that as well.Originally posted by: JDub02
To me, this kind of evidence implies a single creator, not a single ancestor. My $.02.Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Then it's agreed:
Evolution is based on science and ID/creationism is based on BS religious nonsense.
Now let's debate the differences of Lager and Ale by using the scientific method. I'm buying the first round.
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I suppose that is where we disagree, as according to my last post, I used the same examples to show how this is scientifically obervable evidence. Now, using your descriptions of scientifically acceptable observable evidence, if we were to extract DNA from each of a progressive series of fossils, run a few sequences and compare, then it would make the fossils observable evidence, no?
Actually, yes it would. Because genetic evidence has been shown to be directly correlated to ancestry through experiments. That step in the person's argument was left out. That was the issue I was having with that. You can't just state something as being "observable" without having an experiment to back up that claim.
I can claim that certain animals lived in certain periods of time through fossil evidence, strata, and radiological dating. I can do experiments to show this. I could not before genetic testing, point out common ancestry without the "missing link" argument being pointed out and that you could not do an experiment to proof that they were closely linked. After showing through experiment that ancestry and genetics are closely tied, fossil evidence with DNA can show linkage experimentally (if you accept that the experiments that similarities in DNA show common ancestry). The problem with the argument before was that the people were claiming that the actual fossil itself was "observable" evidence that the fossils had a common ancestor. It is not because it could not be shown experimentally that there was a link. Now that it is shown through DNA, you find that there are less people actaully using "missing link" ideas to disprove evolution.
Originally posted by: KCfromNC
That's the wonderful thing about using an omnipotent creator to "explain" the world - no matter what evidence you turn up, an omnipotent creator could have done it. If scientists had dug up early bird fossils that were related to fish instead of birds, you'd be saying the exact same thing. And if they'd found that half of the early bird fossils were related to mammals while the other half came from reptiles and then these two lines merged, you'd be claiming that your omnipotent creator did that as well.Originally posted by: JDub02
To me, this kind of evidence implies a single creator, not a single ancestor. My $.02.Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.
That an omnipotent creator is compatible with anything isn't surprising - that's the whole definition of omnipotent - this creator could have done anything (the things which acutally happened being a subset of this anything). Unfortunately, since she can do anything, it doesn't really let us predict anything about future findings, other than "any future findings must be compatible with an omnipotent being which can do anything it wants on a whim". Unlike scientific explanations that's not a useful tool. But I guess it doesn't hurt anything.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Then it's agreed:
Evolution is based on science and ID/creationism is based on BS religious nonsense.
Now let's debate the differences of Lager and Ale by using the scientific method. I'm buying the first round.
Testing --> hypothesis --> more testing --> arguing about sports --> more testing ---> fat chicks
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Then it's agreed:
Evolution is based on science and ID/creationism is based on BS religious nonsense.
Now let's debate the differences of Lager and Ale by using the scientific method. I'm buying the first round.
Testing --> hypothesis --> more testing --> arguing about sports --> more testing ---> fat chicks
Originally posted by: zinfamous
ya. Though, the question I posed was intended to point out that performing DNA analysis on fossils would make the fossils observable data, using your argument guess I shouldn't have structured the sentence that way....
Anyhoo...you will still find plenty of people using "the missing link" argument. Of course, these people are clueless abotu the argument, and choose to accept it as valid from someone else who is just as ignorant to the theory. A minister (or some generic agenda-driven fundamentalist) who has never investigated evolutionary evidence, or even questioned there own belief system, is never a valid source.
Hell, even Jesus' favorite disciple debated his own faith. These, I believe, are the type of individuals that Jesus wants in his church--not the irrational fundamentalists
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
creationists are uneducated and refuse to put time and effort into this subject yet still continue to spout nonsense.
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: destrekor
they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller
Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....
BINGO, agree totally. Dawkins is as much of a quack as the fundies are. He has an agenda, which is not real science. Darwin would not like that guy (Darwin took decades to compile evidence for evolution based on observation, Dawkins makes statements that show an agenda and cannot be proven either way). "The burden of evidence..." :roll: Give me a break. The burden of evidence goes both ways no matter what the guy says. Of course his books bring up valid points, but P&T should use solid sources rather than this glory hound.
ya, and actually...I'm anti-Dawkin's not so much for his agenda-driven approach, but for what I consider to be his piss-poor understanding of genetics (not that I'm a resident genius or anything, but some of his theories are just silly...)
Yeah, what is funny is that Dawkins had a "debate" with (I believe) the Director of the Human Genome project (who is a Christian BTW), and Dawkins ended up sounding like a petulant ass, which he is in my opinion. He doesn't have a true understanding of the information, but makes broad-caustic statements, just like the fundies. The director on the other hand was cogent and calm throughout and addressed every point in a well understood way. The director also supports evolution as a well established scientific theory, but he is a believer.
Francis Collins is a strange bird. I'm not quite sure how to take him, actually. I have his book, "The Language of God," but have yet to read it. After seeing him on the Colbert Report, I want to place him under the category of "extremely well-informed loon." However, I give him far more credit that Dawkins, who has shut himself off from reason.
I'm a Gould guy anyway, so Dawkins will always sound like a crackpot to me (Funny that Gould is (still) considered the pre-eminent mind in Evolutionary theory, yet he had no problem with God)
Have you ever actually read any Gould or Dawkins? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Gould did a lot of unintentional harm to evolution with his passivity, and that's precisely why Dawkins is taking the offensive. Gould's philisophical meanderings were what gave the creationists ammo to continue their spinning of evolutionary ideas.
He had no problem with God? I guess it depends on what you mean by "problem." He stated several times that he was an agnostic.
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
keep in mind I am Catholic and educated in a Catholic school system. I remember one priest giving us a lecture and he stated what he considered an eternal truth:
"Blind faith is worse than no faith at all."
This opened my eyes to the real world and allowed me to question my faith without me feeling guilty about it.
FWIW
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Then it's agreed:
Evolution is based on science and ID/creationism is based on BS religious nonsense.
Now let's debate the differences of Lager and Ale by using the scientific method. I'm buying the first round.
Testing --> hypothesis --> more testing --> arguing about sports --> more testing ---> fat chicks
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
When did penn and teller become these experts on so many various issues? Weren't they just sh1tty magicians a few years ago?
P.S. I don't believe in creationism.. I just view P&T as untalented, cynical cvnts... The second hand smoke test did it for me, my aunt having cancer while my chain smoking uncle has not..
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
When did penn and teller become these experts on so many various issues? Weren't they just sh1tty magicians a few years ago?
P.S. I don't believe in creationism.. I just view P&T as untalented, cynical cvnts... The second hand smoke test did it for me, my aunt having cancer while my chain smoking uncle has not..
have you seen a fvcking episode?
Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont believe in blind faith in evoloution. I think it is absolutely unproveable. Now the concept of natural selection may be perfectly valid. I can go with survival of the fittest. However, that is not exactly evolution. How come so many animals are on the endangered species list? Why dont they just evolve?
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Then it's agreed:
Evolution is based on science and ID/creationism is based on BS religious nonsense.
Now let's debate the differences of Lager and Ale by using the scientific method. I'm buying the first round.
Testing --> hypothesis --> more testing --> arguing about sports --> more testing ---> fat chicks
Hehe...to be honest, Ale is what lead to the discovery of the structure of DNA.
Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont believe in blind faith in evoloution. I think it is absolutely unproveable. Now the concept of natural selection may be perfectly valid. I can go with survival of the fittest. However, that is not exactly evolution. How come so many animals are on the endangered species list? Why dont they just evolve?
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.