As in the days of Noah.....

[Xaquin44]

doctors are perfectly capable of taking the top (or other portion) of your shull out and playing with your brain. additonally the MRI is an image of your brain. We also know from disection that people and most other animals have brains. brains exist in a concrete- NO FAITH kind of way

seems like you are missing something.

just put this one on ignore tommy. She's playing stupid so there's no point in arguing.

No one could be able to both 'believe that you can't see a brain' and operate a keyboard.

The world can't be made of that much stupid.

 

[baydoll]

doctors are perfectly capable of taking the top (or other portion) of your shull out and playing with your brain. additonally the MRI is an image of your brain. We also know from disection that people and most other animals have brains. brains exist in a concrete- NO FAITH kind of way

So what are you 'using' when you go to that doctor to operate on your brain to make sure you don't have a tumor or whatever?

And also, does that doctor literally take your brain out and show it to you?

 

[tommyjones]

So what are you 'using' when you go to that doctor to operate on your brain to make sure you don't have a tumor or whatever?

And also, does that doctor literally take your brain out and show it to you?

you cannot see your own butthole, do you have one?

BTW, looking at it in the mirror is just seeing an image of it, not the real thing.......

 

[baydoll]

how molecular machines evolved,

From other molecular machines, some of which are naturally occuring even today.

Again, another non-answer. Where did those molecular machines come from? And how did they 'naturally' occur?

Michael Behe, a biochemist currently teaching at Lehigh University, coined a term for describing the design phenomenon inherent in molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellar motor -- "Irreducible Complexity" -- "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Like a mechanical motor, each part in the flagellar motor is absolutely necessary for the whole to function. Therefore, I couldn't logically deduce any naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Besides, no one would expect an outboard motor, whether mechanical or biological, to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Outboard motors are designed and engineered!

Of course, I just picked one example. The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate, well-designed, molecular machines. Furthermore, take these same principles of design and "irreducible complexity" and apply them to marvels such as the human eye, ear, heart, lungs and brain. Seriously, how can we logically explain the gradual and random development of these complex systems?

What about the human heart? It's a miraculously efficient and durable hydraulic pump that no engineer could dream of producing…

What about the human brain? It's a legitimate computer system, 1,000 times faster than a Cray supercomputer and with more connections than all the computers, phone systems and electronic appliances on the entire planet...2

In Darwin's own words:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3

 

[tommyjones]

how molecular machines evolved,



Again, another non-answer. Where did those molecular machines come from? And how did they 'naturally' occur?


In Darwin's own words:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3

demonstrated is different that theorized

 

[baydoll]

Originally Posted by darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3

demonstrated is different that theorized

Then why is evolution still being taught as science and therefore fact?

 

[tommyjones]

Then why is evolution still being taught as science and therefore fact?

it is taught as a theory, some parts of which have been demonstarated as fact.



so what, you aren't going to answer the bunghole question? i mean how do you know you have one if you have never seen it?

are you still trying to argue that people dont have brains?

 

[baydoll]

Because it is a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is perfectly acceptable to teach a SCIENTIFIC theory in a SCIENCE class. Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class. Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also

What your asking for is equal status between a SCIENTIFIC theory based on fact and discovery, versus a THEOLOGICAL belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith). Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class

According to the Oxford Dictionary, science is a 'branch of study...concerned either with a body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified....under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain".

So True Science is observable, demonstrable, repeatable.

Is Evolution Scientific? Is it observable, demonstrable, repeatable?

Can it trace itself back to a point where inanimate matter became a living creature?

The foundation of the Evolutionary 'Theory' is as thus:

1. Unknown Chemicals in the primordial past....through...

2. Unknown Processes that no longer exist...produces...

3. Unknown Life Forms that are not to be found..but could, through...

4. Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life...in an ..

5.Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex...at an..

6.Unknown Time and Place. (Dennis R Peterson)

In other words, a fairy tale.

 

[Xaquin44]

you guys are arguing with someone who doesn't think that the human brain is visible. Nothing you can do will make her change her (hahaha) mind.

When someone this stupid presents an argument (and I use that term loosely, as random false/stupid statements hardly qualify) this terrible, it's best to either laugh it off and hope she's kidding, or die a little inside at the idea that anyone could actually be this dumb.

Myself, I'm going to read a book. Using my perfectly visible mind (as well as my eyes and hands).

 

[baydoll]

1. You've glossed over a Scientific Theory being taught in a Science class. Its perfectly acceptable, for class devoted to Science, to learn about a Scientific theory.
2. You minimize, because you have to, that one is a theory based on Fact and Discovery, the other is based on the absence of Fact and Discovery. You have your theory complete, God did it.
3. I have no problem for a Theological class to teach Inteligent Design or Creationism, but which ID/Creationism theory would you like taught in a Theological class? (remember yours isnt hardly the only one).

Very quickly:

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.

The 'theories' of evolution, and I use that term loosely, have been shown to be false. Surprisingly (or maybe not) some of these proven fake 'theories' are still being taught in our schools.

Darwin made up a lot of 'facts' and then 'filled in' when he had no proofs.

 

[Xaquin44]

I know, I was trying to not put her in the same category as Marie (Dinosaurs and Man co-existed) and I keep getting drawn back into the discussion.

We need BCP or Italian to create another Muslim are nuts for believing the same thing Christian are taught threads

Sometimes I wish I had to willpower to ignore whole subforums =/

 

[foodcritic]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, science is a 'branch of study...concerned either with a body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified....under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain".

So True Science is observable, demonstrable, repeatable.

Is Evolution Scientific? Is it observable, demonstrable, repeatable?

Can it trace itself back to a point where inanimate matter became a living creature?

The foundation of the Evolutionary 'Theory' is as thus:





In other words, a fairy tale.

Very good points. I will also point out that the trifecta of forumites who loves gay rights and hate all things God keep quoting "Science".
Which science actually are we refering to. The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology. What about the numerous other "sciences"? The FACT continues that most of these sciences will conflict with each other.

This does not prove God or creation by the way but it continues to poke bigger holes in the evolution theory.

When we press most of these guys about first cause or the big bang they can not answer it. What was before the "big bang"? Ask and you will get dozens of answers from "scientists".

 

[Toxick]

Which science actually are we refering to. The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology. What about the numerous other "sciences"?

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that we in the Computer Science field have not come to a concensus on the existence or nonexistence of a diety or dieties.



We do however remain totally pissed off at the de-propagation of Jolt Cola and ephedra.

 

[tommyjones]

Very good points. I will also point out that the trifecta of forumites who loves gay rights and hate all things God keep quoting "Science".
Which science actually are we refering to. The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology. What about the numerous other "sciences"? The FACT continues that most of these sciences will conflict with each other.

This does not prove God or creation by the way but it continues to poke bigger holes in the evolution theory.

When we press most of these guys about first cause or the big bang they can not answer it. What was before the "big bang"? Ask and you will get dozens of answers from "scientists".

and where did god sit when he created the universe?

where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?

what was there BEFORE god created the universe?

did god create life on other planets?


answer those oh insightful one......

 

[This_person]

Because it is a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is perfectly acceptable to teach a SCIENTIFIC theory in a SCIENCE class. Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class. Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also

What your asking for is equal status between a SCIENTIFIC theory based on fact and discovery, versus a THEOLOGICAL belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith). Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class

I have no problem understanding the concept - I reject evolution as different in basis than Intelligent Design.

ID can't be tested? Show me the test for evolution that includes demonstratable, repeatable results of sponges becoming humans (granted, with eons in between). Show me the test with demonstratable, peer reviewable, repeatable results for abiogenesis given the known conditions of when it occurred.

You can't do those things. I can't give you the test for ID. We are equal in our faith that our untestable, undemonstratable beliefs are right.

 

[This_person]

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that we in the Computer Science field have not come to a concensus on the existence or nonexistence of a diety or dieties.



We do however remain totally pissed off at the de-propagation of Jolt Cola and ephedra.

 

[This_person]

and where did god sit when he created the universe?

What was in the space occupied before the universe expanded? Why did it expand exactly when it did, not a microsecond or three millenium before?

where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?

And, where did the stuff come from for the universe? What were the laws in that first pico-second, and why did they change?

what was there BEFORE god created the universe?

Or, before it sprang out of nothingness without God?

did god create life on other planets?

Is there life on other planets?

answer those oh insightful one......

Ditto.

We don't know, either of us, any more than the other. Good to see you're getting the point.

 

[tommyjones]

What was in the space occupied before the universe expanded? Why did it expand exactly when it did, not a microsecond or three millenium before?And, where did the stuff come from for the universe? What were the laws in that first pico-second, and why did they change?Or, before it sprang out of nothingness without God?Is there life on other planets?Ditto.

We don't know, either of us, any more than the other. Good to see you're getting the point.

if the point is that you are an idiot, i got that a long time ago.

 

[This_person]

if the point is that you are an idiot, i got that a long time ago.

I'm trying to have a civil, reasonable discussion on this, Tommy. Do you realize there are no answers or testable, repeatable, peer reviewable, demonstratable theories from science, either, to any of these questions? Have you gotten the point that you don't know, and have no better way of proving any of science's theories than ID can?

 

[tirdun]

You have completely failed at proving a thing.

I didn't attempt to prove anything. I answered flippant, ignorant questions with answers that are supported by modern science. As my prior discussions with you have proven, you will fall back on the same set of arguments to debate nothing and understand less.

You know what the environment was? That puts you above 100% of the rest of the population, who can only speculate without proof.

The environment is not fully understood, mostly because it doesn't exist anymore. The question, however, supposes that the environment was pure acid and nothing could have come from it. I don't have time to research, format and post answers to a hundred questions that were cut and paste from some creationist site. Argumentum ad ignorantium infinity is a losing battle.

You have faith in that, or direct proof? Or, more guesses?

That there are bones in the ground? I'm going to say that I have direct proof and claim that a fossil will be found today. Large, important fossils may not be, but they -will- be eventually.

So, what is the source of that "drive"? Humans seemingly fared just fine when we were shorter and lived shorter lives, so what caused the changes? Sponges exist just fine - they're a successful species - so why did anything evolve past sponges?

The "drive" is evolution. The biological mechanisms of evolution have little effect in successful species except over very large numbers of generations.

Sponges are successful in specific environments and less successful in others. Environments that change, which creates pressures, which drives the mechanics of evolution.

You're making a circular, illogical argument that doesn't answer the question.

You have nothing to support that and you make endless claims that things are true, not true, and equivocal with nothing but your own personal beliefs.

But, where did the universe come from? Where did the matter come from for the universe?

Don't know, and neither do you. The matter came from the energy which came from the beginnings of the universe which are unknown. This in no way supports your argument that it snapped into existence and that some hand has been tweaking the knobs ever since.

violating the laws of thermodynamics?

I would wager you don't even understand the laws of thermodynamics, nor the theory of thermodynamics under which they exist.

A mind so inquisitive would have us, uh, NOWHERE!

A mind as closed as yours would have us ignore the universe.

The building blocks of the universe came from somewhere, isn't that a good place to start for how things happened - where the stuff comes from?

Sadly, that place to start doesn't really exist and the tools by which we now study it are limited. Background noise in the universe, for example, which is how we know most of what we know of the beginnings of time

Are you suggesting, by saying "sucking away energy" that energy can be created? Or destroyed? Because, last I heard, it could be neither created nor destroyed, just changed in form.

Sucking away, layman's term for reducing the usefulness of the energy through entropy, which you might understand if you understood the theory of thermodynamics.

Or, are you referring to entropy?

See? You know the words, but you don't understand their meaning. Creating order costs energy. Energy that is reduced, depleted through entropy but not destroyed.

Okay, great - the Big Bang. And, what about before that?

There is no way to objectively know "before that" because asking "before that" doesn't really make sense as we understand the universe.

One of the great questions regarding God is - where did He come from? That question stops many non-thinki...er, athiests from ever contemplating believing in a God. So, where did the universe come from, some 14 billion years ago? What was here before that, same as with the question of "who created God"?

That question stumps many theists too, but I dare say that I have more evidence in the early existence of a universe than you have in the appearance of God.

All science does is redirect the unanswerable questions.

Really? Asking why lightning strikes is unanswerable? Because science eventually did that. Why do people get sick? Plenty of answers, plenty more to find. Why do we have earthquakes and volcanoes? Answered, more questions found, deeper understanding reached.

Why do people die in hurricanes?

And, meanwhile, the Big Bang and Genesis are pretty much 100% compatible when one realizes that a "day" is yet to be defined in Genesis.

Genesis: Day="yom" = 24 hours. It means 24 hours everywhere else in the Bible, why not here? Sections of day are regularly given, when is the "evening" of a million years? Shifting "day" to mean some vast length of time also puts the Sun being created millions of years (thousands of years? billions of years? weeks?) after plants.

Both of these faith-based concepts work well together.

No, and faith is belief without evidence. While you seem stuck in the idea that science is all based on people thinking things are wonderful concepts and therefore must be true, there's actually a lot of evidence required.

And, clearly, attacking the asker's way of asking the question answers it?

The question betrays an ignorance of the item being challenged, which makes it foolish to bother answering.

How DID life come from lifelessness? Why don't we see it happen any more? Why didn't it happen anywhere else that we can see? Is that a better way of asking?

Yes, it is. And the details of which are available to you in a format that isn't compatible with me typing onto an internet forum. Decades of science and tons of research and all that. Is the question answered? No. Does that make it "faith" or "guesswork"? No.

Actually, no, she's asking about evolution. Abiogenesis is life from lifelessness. Once the life is there, it's evolution of that life. If you're going to criticize, understand what you're attacking.

Actually, Yes. She's asking how single celled organisms, which were very likely the earliest forms of life, evolved. And she's doing it by cutting and pasting, and she's doing it with no understanding of the science. And you're defending it with no understanding of the science and demanding that I cover years of college level material and challenging concepts on a forum when she and you are both hostile to the concept.

And, there is no "win". The fact is that no one knows, no one can know. It's faith on every side as to what happened. "Winning" would be actual proof - which no one will ever have. "Opening your mind" would be atheists accepting that simple truth.

Different day, same argument. Science = faith for you and that's the end, therefore any conclusions met by science that don't line up with conclusions reached by faith are dismissable.

This entire exercise was, as stated in the first line, a fast refutation of a set of cut and paste questions that argue purely by overwhelming. Ask a hundred short questions that require tedious and complicated answers and you can win the debate by wearing down anyone attempting to rebut.