SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Statler Waldorf]

bacterial infections, such as flu strains like sars, strep throat strains etc, adapt to treatments like penicillin and require different antibiotics to treat.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228124415.htm

Human and chimp brains are very similar.

Look, any response I give, no matter how convincing, will already be rendered invalid. I'm done wasting energy with this thread. Anyone who gives credibility to Intelligent Design does not deserve a wink of credibility. Every aspect of it has been proven unfalsifiable or wrong.

LOL, wow you are taking pages from the Dawkins debate book, if you can't explain it away call it non-scientitifc. Irreducible Complexity has never been explained away, evolutionists simply just ignore it because it tears their theory apart. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are closely related, humans share 80 percent of the genetic information as a banana, are we decendants of bananas?

 

[noble savage]

Give me a biological system that you feel is irreducibly complex.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Give me a biological system that you feel is irreducibly complex.

Sure, we'll go super basic first, DNA Replication and Synthesis.


A more complex one, the human eye.

 

[noble savage]

Sure, we'll go super basic first, DNA Replication and Synthesis.


A more complex one, the human eye.

I don't know anything about DNA replication, but nothing about it seems irreducibly complex

This video explains every aspect of eyes (Including humans.) I know a bit about this, but I don't think I could get everything right.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

I should ask. What exactly about them is it that you think is irreducibly complex? There are so many aspects of these topics and this is an area that would require me to read up a bit as I don't know a whole lot in many of these areas.

 

[SilentRealm]

good job beautiful..... you just made me have impure thought..... just when prog got done reighning me in...... great !.............

I did appreaciate your post about who deserves what, but I feel death is too easy. Im more into amputations and life long suffering as they have caused others..........

amputations are good too - without anaesthetic and with rusty and/or blunt instruments

 

[SilentRealm]

Try reading the Book The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins. It starts with people and works backward all the way back to bacteria. He explains all of the scientific methods and reasons why things turned out the way they did.

hmm, worth checking out!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't know anything about DNA replication, but nothing about it seems irreducibly complex

This video explains every aspect of eyes (Including humans.) I know a bit about this, but I don't think I could get everything right.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

I should ask. What exactly about them is it that you think is irreducibly complex? There are so many aspects of these topics and this is an area that would require me to read up a bit as I don't know a whole lot in many of these areas.

Well as far as DNA Replication the whole system is irreducibly complex, the chaperone proteins are synthesized by the very thing they are chaperoning. The structures used to align the amino acids are themselves built by amino acid alignment. You take one component of it away and it doesn't function, so you cannot build it piece by piece with natural selection. Natural selection could only act upon it once the system is there it cannot get you the system. The human eye has over 1000 parts, the majority of which are completely unique, it's hard to think this could have developed from less complex black and white eyes.

 

[SilentRealm]

I don't know anything about DNA replication, but nothing about it seems irreducibly complex

This video explains every aspect of eyes (Including humans.) I know a bit about this, but I don't think I could get everything right.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

I should ask. What exactly about them is it that you think is irreducibly complex? There are so many aspects of these topics and this is an area that would require me to read up a bit as I don't know a whole lot in many of these areas.

imo - meh, i feel like that explanation is nothing more than grasping at straws.. a light pigment somehow managed the evasion of predators and thus slowly transformed? i don't think so..

 

[razoredge]

amputations are good too - without anaesthetic and with rusty and/or blunt instruments

no, no, must avoid infections, this could cause premature death = less suffering

anaesthia - definantly out of the question, must conserve resources, keep budget low. Singeing inflected wound with flame should suffice

 

[noble savage]

imo - meh, i feel like that explanation is nothing more than grasping at straws.. a light pigment somehow managed the evasion of predators and thus slowly transformed? i don't think so..

Well, I was searching for more details and I found this Statler, DNA replication is way beyond me. I'm venturing way out of my knowledge zone on these. I'm sure there is a response, but I'm not capable of answering it. I'm a physics guy!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, I was searching for more details and I found this Statler, DNA replication is way beyond me. I'm venturing way out of my knowledge zone on these. I'm sure there is a response, but I'm not capable of answering it. I'm a physics guy!

Yeah, well that's cool. IC is an idea developed by Dr. Michael Behe in the early 90s. It really is fascinating and it's sad that it has not been discussed much. I believe the biggest strength of science is being able to debate ideas and theories, and sadly people have begun to shut down the debate. Somehow if you question evolutionary theory or even parts of it you're a religious zealot now, or not a scientist. That's how science progresses forward though questionis and debates. Do you agree?

 

[Yngvai X]

Holy shit this thread got long, haha. First of all, Zach, I understand you see my point of view as splitting hairs, but when you wanna talk philosophy sometimes its that hair splitting that is the difference between one philosophy and another. Just because the ends of some Christian morals is shared with my Objectivist/Individualist morals doesn't mean that I embrace the entire morality of Christianity. Proulxski made a blanket statement that some others agreed with, that the morals of Christianity are just guidelines to lead a good life, and since since that does not apply to me, and many others in this world, I'd counter that statement. I could go into detail as to why I think christian morals are wrong, if you'd like me to.

As far as your comment on agnosticism, I'd say you're not agnostic, you're just apathetic .

Yaz - What I think you're talking about is more skepticism... I agree its healthy to be skeptical, but not to the point that you never make up your mind about anything. Its healthy and empowering to make firm assessments on things, IMO.

All I did was ask a simple question, a question that I know none of you can answer without using a standard greater than yourself, parents, cops, government, and society. Humans are programmed to feel killing is wrong, I agree with this, however why is that? How could someone who believes in no supernatural power greater than themselves believe in wrong or right? It's not possible, I am sorry, and I am still waiting for a decent answer to this question......waiting......

Here's your answer:

I don't have to look to an authority to know murder is wrong. All living things have an instinct of survival... you can see this in a wolf that would gnaw its own leg off thats been caught in a trap than lie there and die. Its not some enlightenment bestowed on living things from a creator... to die is to cease living, if living things didn't fear death and do everything they can to keep on living, life wouldn't have lasted very long on this planet. If you're going to have respect for the individual, you have to respect that individuals are free to pursue their lives on their own, and by taking their life, you are infringing on their individual freedom. So basically, by knowing my freedoms would be infringed upon if someone killed me, I would be going against my integrity by saying its ok for me to go murder someone else, since that would then mean its ok for someone to try to murder me. Hence, murder is wrong. Now if some lunatic tried to murder me, I'd certainly try to kill him first, since he's essentially said to me "I don't value life", which would include his own.

 

[Yngvai X]

The human eye has over 1000 parts, the majority of which are completely unique, it's hard to think this could have developed from less complex black and white eyes.

Great logic there, buddy. "I can't comprehend this, THEREFORE it must have just been put there by some supernatural deity."

Let me take this logic to an absurd extreme to show just how silly it is: "I can't comprehend how waves in the ocean are made, THEREFORE some giant sea monster must be making them!"

 

[progmetaldan]

Without trying to come across as rude, and not necessarily directe at you, Yngvai X, its just that you said it, ( ) but what about "I can't comprehend a supernatural deity, therefore it must not exist" also being a bit illogical.

You might not be able to comprehend how the eye works, or how the waves are made, but you don't deny that an eye therefore can't exist...

(Dammit, I entered the argument... )

 

[Yngvai X]

Without trying to come across as rude, and not necessarily directe at you, Yngvai X, its just that you said it, ( ) but what about "I can't comprehend a supernatural deity, therefore it must not exist" also being a bit illogical.

Not being rude at all, this is a debate/discussion .

There is a reasoning based in reality for denying the existence of a supernatural deity. Its not a lack of comprehension, rather its an assessment of what reality shows me. One is never called upon to prove a negative. It would be absurd for me to ask of you to prove the existence of, say, a mythological creature. You wouldn't say you can't comprehend the existence of unicorns, you would simply state that its not even possible, because of what reality has presented you. Reality shows me no proof of a god, therefore, one does not exist. That is a logical conclusion.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Great logic there, buddy. "I can't comprehend this, THEREFORE it must have just been put there by some supernatural deity."

Let me take this logic to an absurd extreme to show just how silly it is: "I can't comprehend how waves in the ocean are made, THEREFORE some giant sea monster must be making them!"

You see, this is what happens when you leave and come back later you completely miss what the discussion has switched to. I was discussing the inability of the Natural Selection process to produce a human eye; obviously something you know nothing about or you woudln't have said what you said. This is the problem with Darwinists today, if they don't understand something they assume it still happened like you just did. Evolution has become their God. Given enough time the impossible becomes probable. Evolution is not the default theory, it's not up to the critics to point out the holes in it, it's up to it's faithful to fill in the gaps and irreducible complexity is a huge void that has never been filled in.

 

[Yngvai X]

You see, this is what happens when you leave and come back later you completely miss what the discussion has switched to. I was discussing the inability of the Natural Selection process to produce a human eye; obviously something you know nothing about or you woudln't have said what you said. This is the problem with Darwinists today, if they don't understand something they assume it still happened like you just did. Evolution has become their God. Given enough time the impossible becomes probable. Evolution is not the default theory, it's not up to the critics to point out the holes in it, it's up to it's faithful to fill in the gaps and irreducible complexity is a huge void that has never been filled in.

So the only possible alternative to evolution is going on the assumption of a god existing? That is essentially what you and all creationists argue, and I stated in my last post why that is irrational. Its no different than the ridiculous story scientology cooked up. You want to deny reality and base your decision making on your emotions. Thats fine, thats what faith is, just stop trying to prove it scientifically, because its impossible.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

So the only possible alternative to evolution is going on the assumption of a god existing? That is essentially what you and all creationists argue, and I stated in my last post why that is irrational. Its no different than the ridiculous story scientology cooked up. You want to deny reality and base your decision making on your emotions. Thats fine, thats what faith is, just stop trying to prove it scientifically, because its impossible.

You see here you go again outside your field of knowledge. I have a degree in Science I have been around the block a few times so to speak. Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Desgin are all historical sciences and you're trying to treat them as if they were emperical sciences. You can't "prove" anything with a historical science because you lack the two qualifiers for an emperical science, direct observation and repeatability. We will never directly observe evolution or creation and if we did we couldn't repeat it so stop acting like Darwinists are "proving" anything through science because they are not. They are merely using scientific reasoning to determine what most likely happened, the same as the creation scientists.

 

[progmetaldan]

Not being rude at all, this is a debate/discussion .

There is a reasoning based in reality for denying the existence of a supernatural deity. Its not a lack of comprehension, rather its an assessment of what reality shows me. One is never called upon to prove a negative. It would be absurd for me to ask of you to prove the existence of, say, a mythological creature. You wouldn't say you can't comprehend the existence of unicorns, you would simply state that its not even possible, because of what reality has presented you. Reality shows me no proof of a god, therefore, one does not exist. That is a logical conclusion.

yep, that's logical, only again I must point out to everyone, that ultimately this argument is always going to come back to this point, because you do not believe in God, and therefore attribute creation, morals etc. to something else. I believe in God and can see his design and workmanship in everything, the bible states all of nature cries out, showing God to man, and I can see him in its beauty, from the awesomeness of the universe, to the intricacies of the human body. Without acknowledgement of God however, obviously you're going to attribute it to 'something' else, without a knowledge of God it is going to all seem foolishness. No matter how many arguments are presented from either side, for or against evolution, for or against morals, religions, anything theological in nature, in reality its going to come back to whether you believe in God or not, so this argument will never end... :zombie:

 

[razoredge]

exactly neither one can be proved and one is extremely far fetched and ignores alot of details

so I believe we came from another planet, the majority of the pilgrims did not climatize and all died off except two. They were a brother and sister who had more physical going for them than brains, physically strong and adaptable..... which brainiacks lack.... so they did climatize to the new somewhat different atmosphere and bacterial assult. They grew up here on earth alone from the age of ten and twelve without the advanced education so most all of their previous history and all advanced technology was lost. Then as they were brother and sister.... they bred a pile of mutations which became what we call the human race... a highly flawed species. There are many more details from my lifelong research of the subject, which has found who, where and what the supreme being is and other things pertaining to the meaning of life, the pyramids, black holes, zits and many other interesting dilemmas of man... but Im in proces of writing a book and can not reveil these at this time.