Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[geauxtohell]

But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.

Not smarter. More precise and accurate. This is only relevant to explain why "Haldane's Delimma" isn't really a delimma at all.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?

I don't. I've told you about five times now that you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

I only develop contempt when people like you want to impose your personal religious beliefs on the scientific method as the larger implications of doing so would completely retard the field.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.

Of course. It must be a conspiracy, right?

Then why did Haldane even publish to begin with?

D'oh!

If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.

Not really, but nice try.

 

[geauxtohell]

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.

Not smarter. More precise and accurate. This is only relevant to explain why "Haldane's Delimma" isn't really a delimma at all.

Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?

I don't. I've told you about five times now that you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

I only develop contempt when people like you want to impose your personal religious beliefs on the scientific method as the larger implications of doing so would completely retard the field.

How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?

As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.

Of course. It must be a conspiracy, right?

Then why did Haldane even publish to begin with?

D'oh!

If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.

Not really, but nice try.

No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.

Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.

 

[Youwerecreated]

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:

Are you fucking kidding me?

You mind letting me in on the joke ?

I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.

Many are picking your little theory apart.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.

Who exactly coined them? Who were these "evolutionists". As they are used in biological sciences, it's understood that they are intricately connected and not abstractly different things.

As creationists have disingenuously tried to create a semantics debate to cloud the larger issue (as they do with the term "theory") the concept of "micro" and "macro" evolution are not anything that people who understand the theory split hairs about.

If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.

Because, as I said before, there is not scientifically valid alternative. That is aside from the fact that the evidence against it is scant and the evidence for it is massive. My point was this: the scientific approach is to consider any other valid possibility and not to adhere to something like religious doctrine. As new ideas and issues come up, the larger theory changes. Case in point: Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well, he did, but it was silly). Modern genetics has neatly explained at the molecular level what Darwin was able to observe with his eyes.

As it stands, the theory is always open to be altered and has been many, many times. At this point, there is no scientific theory or thought out there that would counter evolution.



That's not true. There is a massive difference. Once side adheres to religion to explain the natural world and the other side adheres to the scientific method.



There are multiple good explanations. At this point, it's just which explanation is more plausible. "Evolutionists" didn't "give up" on the issue of the origin of life. Rather, it's so complex that it warrants it's own specialized field of biology.

Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?

The verb form of the word doesn't have the same connotation as the noun form:
Bastardize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Many"? That is being exceedingly generous. If you post the list from the Discovery Institute of scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" (which is not the same thing as creationism) prepare to get smacked down. It's been discredited. As for "early scientists", why would I fault people for going with the faith based explanation when there was a lack of scientific evidence? That's just silly. I certainly fault any scientist who today choose to be ignorant.

As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.

And I am not impressed that you can't grasp the crucial issue at stake here (though it is funny that you would lash out a Dr. Miller who obviously does).

Whether God exists or not (and thus created the world) is a question that is outside the scope of science to answer.

Therefore, you can be a scientist and believe in God and evolution and admit that you don't have to reconcile those two beliefs. At the same time, you acknowledge that it is outside the standards of your profession to introduce theology into the scientific method.

It's a simple matter of professional competence and not religious conviction.

An easier example would be of a Mormon Police Officer who acknowledges that he can't arrest people for drinking caffeine.

In fact, in every other profession but the field of science, we expect people to keep their religion out of their professional work. And yet, for some reason, you all expect scientists to be different and vilify them for trying to maintain the standards of the profession.

You say you are well read on this matter. I have my doubts. I suggest you buy a biology textbook and simply study the scientific method and how basic science works.

This is not a complicated issue. You are missing the forrest for the trees.

Why do you have the army ranger logo as your avatar ? i doubt you're old enough to be in the military by your vocabulary, with impressive terms such as Duh and retard.

I was an army ranger in the 101st you don't strike me as a Ranger.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do you have the army ranger logo as your avatar ? i doubt you're old enough to be in the military by your vocabulary, with impressive terms such as Duh and retard.

I was an army ranger in the 101st you don't strike me as a Ranger.

I obviously have the logo because I completed Ranger School. Class 4-02.

It's irrelevant what I strike you as.

 

[rdean]

Evolution is the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.

 

[geauxtohell]

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:

Are you fucking kidding me?

You mind letting me in on the joke ?

I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.

Many are picking your little theory apart.

That most of the names on your list came were dead before Darwin published his list. The rest can't really be counted on to fall in line with the creationists in this debate. You don't know what Louis Pasteur would have said on this debate.

Of the ones that are living and actively contributing to scientific research, I don't see many, if any, biologists.

Even guys like Dr. Richard Behe, who is Intelligent Design's "go-to" academic (he is a biochemist), accepts evolution (to include "Macro-evolution"), he just thinks it was guided by an "intelligent" process.

Why do you guys have to resort to blatant dishonesty to try and make your side seem legitimate?

Intelligent Design was bad enough.

Creation is even worse.

In fact, I often see you using those two terms interchangeably. They are not the same thing. What exactly do you believe?

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution is the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.

And genetics, biochemistry, pathology, ecology, etc.

 

[geauxtohell]

No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.

Again, the "this is too complicated to have happened on it's own!" is not a scientific argument. Over a long enough time frame, anything that doesn't violate the basic rules of nature can happen.

Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.

Many, many, many, many more who surpass me (and way surpass you) agree with me. If you want to go that route, you are going to lose. Your point is, again, irrelevant.

 

[geauxtohell]

How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?

That's not what I claimed at all. I suspect you are smart enough to know it.

As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.

In the above context, it was used in the literal and not the pejorative sense. You either lack reading comprehension skills or are being intentionally obtuse to try and divert this topic to a referendum on my "maturity level". I suspect the latter, and again, I suspect you are smart enough to know it.

Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?

Sure. Now go ahead and make your "See, this is a good example of the majesty of creation! Just as God created us all! It couldn't have just happened de novo!" point that you are so dying to make. I've never seen that one tossed out before.

What's next, the "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! You don't see airplanes self assembling themselves in a junkyard!" talking point?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:

Are you fucking kidding me?

You mind letting me in on the joke ?

I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.

Many are picking your little theory apart.

That most of the names on your list came were dead before Darwin published his list. The rest can't really be counted on to fall in line with the creationists in this debate. You don't know what Louis Pasteur would have said on this debate.

Of the ones that are living and actively contributing to scientific research, I don't see many, if any, biologists.

Even guys like Dr. Richard Behe, who is Intelligent Design's "go-to" academic (he is a biochemist), accepts evolution (to include "Macro-evolution"), he just thinks it was guided by an "intelligent" process.

Why do you guys have to resort to blatant dishonesty to try and make your side seem legitimate?

Intelligent Design was bad enough.

Creation is even worse.

In fact, I often see you using those two terms interchangeably. They are not the same thing. What exactly do you believe?

I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.

As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.

Again, the "this is too complicated to have happened on it's own!" is not a scientific argument. Over a long enough time frame, anything that doesn't violate the basic rules of nature can happen.

Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.

Many, many, many, many more who surpass me (and way surpass you) agree with me. If you want to go that route, you are going to lose. Your point is, again, irrelevant.

If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.

I do believe that many of evolutions best minds are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.

As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.

So, you really don't have scientifically valid theory that is defensible on this matter? That's fine, but you are not an anomaly. Most people on all sides of the debate acknowledge that they don't have all the answers. In fact, you basically describe what Dr. Miller believes. Too bad you couldn't be troubled to actually listen to what he had to say. Instead, you castigated him because he wasn't (in your view) sufficiently religious.

Intelligent Design accepts the mechanics of evolution to explain speciation (i.e. "macroevolution" as you put it). They just think the process was helped by a supernatural force.

"Creationism" is the belief that God created everything in 7 days as literally put forth in the bible.

 

[geauxtohell]

If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.

Pascale's Wager. Again, not a terribly inspiring scientific argument.

BTW, I don't recall Christ saying that salvation is dependent upon a literal reading of Genesis.

I do believe that many of evolutions best are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.

You believe wrong.

The high water mark for this latest fad was the trial at Dover, where the Intelligent Design crew was completely thrashed and exposed as the dishonest frauds that they were. The judge ( a conservative Bush appointee) almost sanctioned some of the ID people for their actions on the stand.

Since that time, you see "Intelligent Design" referenced as an alternative theory to evolution less and less.

It doesn't help when your star witness (Behe) is beaten to a pulp on scientific matters by an attorney.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?

That's not what I claimed at all. I suspect you are smart enough to know it.

As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.

In the above context, it was used in the literal and not the pejorative sense. You either lack reading comprehension skills or are being intentionally obtuse to try and divert this topic to a referendum on my "maturity level". I suspect the latter, and again, I suspect you are smart enough to know it.

Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?

Sure. Now go ahead and make your "See, this is a good example of the majesty of creation! Just as God created us all! It couldn't have just happened de novo!" point that you are so dying to make. I've never seen that one tossed out before.

What's next, the "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! You don't see airplanes self assembling themselves in a junkyard!" talking point?

I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.