Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: faithinfire
one is from an omniscient being and the other is from a bunch of people with limited understanding of the natural world
i don't take the bible fully literally but this is why i'd listen more to it. theories are always coming into question and getting revamped. the bible is mostly just translated
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: Ken Miller
Science often deals with novel scientific claims
But what we expect people to do is to do real research to back up their claims. To submit them to pier review to engage in the give and take of scientific argument. to win a scientific consensus and eventually if the evidence is on the side of these ideas no matter how goofy they sound at first and no matter how much the scientific community apposes them they will eventually find their way into classrooms and text books.
Now intelligent design advocates like to say they have a new scientific idea to and you know what if they wanted to do this I would be thrilled. I would say see you at the cell biology see you at biochemistry see you at earth science meetings we will have fun we will argue about this and I’ll show you your full of it and you know what may be you’ll do the same to me. may be you will come up with the experiments with the analysis that will show you are right and if you are right in 10 15 years we won’t have to go to the school board and argue you will automatically end up in textbooks and classrooms
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by:
Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: FireTomWritten by: Jeff(fake)
Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
This is not according to religion's history...
Written by: Patriarch917
Something about rubix cubes I gather
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)
Where are your peer review papers then?
Written by: jeff(fake)
but the origin of life is irrelevent to evolution....
Written by: FireTom
Patriarch: I think you have just made a glorious example which turns "the supreme being" into a blindfolded rubics cube player and therefore prooved his superiority (in patience)...
To think about the likelyhood of your example within the given timeframe in itself doesn't proof ID - or it does just as much as you can believe in the likelyhood of evolution - it might question evolution but nothing more.
Written by: Patriarch917
Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material.
You didn't read it thourally did you? What it shows is the origins of a completly novel enzyme, basicly the creation of new information which creationist claim is impossible. Genetic additions, a different topic and which also happened in the formation of Nylonasem occur all the time, and I've sequenced some myself.
Written by: jeff(fake)
That's as much as I'll say on this, the rest of your post is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no concept of evolutionary theory and you argue from store bought fallacys from AiG. An enzyme only needs to be adequate, not perfect, and changes happen at a few at a time not all at once, thus your Rubix cube analogy is a pitiful failure. I deal with organic chemistry, take your multicoloured plastic toy elsewhere.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Natural selection is not random, the clue is in the second word of the name. Until you can grasp that very simple concept you will never understand nor be able to argue against evolution.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
8 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: ben-ja-menWritten by: jeff(fake)
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
8 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
i think youll find theres 12 side pieces not that its here nor there .... but u know it had to be said
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
Which is why I called it a bad analogy.
With the case of organic chemistry there would have been a metric load more than a billion organic molecuels on primeval Earth. Slightly more than the billion number I used in the last example...
As I said before though, it's speculative. But it is still presumtious to assume that it was created by god when no reliable evidence that such a thing has ever been observed, whilst the abiotic hypothesis utilise only mechanics observable today. I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbably can occur by chance and selection, but you've never shown any proof of the existance of god.
It's simply a matter of parsimony.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Written by: faithinfire
If you cannot be adult enough to respect my beliefs, there is no point in talking to some of you.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Sym
Patriarch, evolution is not random. That is the key here, it just isn't random at all.
It's Selection, things are selected in the same way fatter cows or poodles were selected, except this time they are not selected by anything other then their ability to live.
That is not random, and no scientist would say that life is random – that’s what you are saying! You are saying that life came to be from nothing in one step! That is the point that we do not agree with, we are saying that it did not just happen, and it took a very long time with a very many small steps.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
Only three things are certain: Death, Taxes, and that England will not win back the Ashes in this lifetime.
Written by:
Naturalism is a religion, just as much as hinduism, judaism, or any other religion. Like other religions, it is based on faith in a particular explanation for the world we can observe. It masquerades as science, and insists (like other religions) that it should be accepted to the exclusion of others.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by:
What does the discovery of unfossilized t-rex bone tissue mean? To a creationist, it means the bone is young. To an evolutionist, it means that we need to come up with a theory of how soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years.
Written by:
Gary Hurd PhD
Concluding Remarks
Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact four gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.
Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis. Wieland wrote -
Such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. [Wieland 2002]
The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you "own" the truth, you apparently needn't stint at falsehood.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Written by: Patriarch917
If it is not random, then it is planned. This is the difference between ID and evolution.
Written by: Patriarch917
Naturalism is a religion...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.