Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People become scientists for the express purpose of questioning science.

Gap? Can you name any? Remember, this is 2010 NOT 1982. Knowledge is doubled every year.

We even know the color of some dinosaurs and have found "soft tissue" a hundred million years old. It's a new day. All of the "questions" of the "magical creationists" have been answered. Transitional species, flagellin, the eye. The questions that haven't been answered haven't been asked by the "magical creationists" because they don't know enough science to think up a really good question. It takes a scientist to stump a scientist.

So how did the DNA double helix evolve again?

You're right, your ignorance means I must have designed it that way.


Now worship me, bitch, lest I smite you with my member.

Maybe you did!!!! If we dont research it I guess we never can find out and we can just all assume the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe too while we are at it .

Maybe we were designed by space aliens. Maybe it just was an awesome series of random events. Maybe there is a "creator" out there. I for one dont know so I'm all for science exploring it to help us learn more.

I'm not sure why you appear to be against scientific research in this area. It feels like you have some other agenda at play but I could be totally wrong as this is an assumption on my part.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Question: Why is DNA in a double-helix shape?
Newton Guest14

Answer:
The why questions are always the worst. Why is anything the way it is?
The individual subunits (nucleotides and deoxyribose sugars) bond
to one another in certain ways only at certain points. As the chain
of these subunits grows, the bonding pattern becomes or leads to a
helical shape. The complementary strands are, in a sense, mirror images
of each other. Hope this helps.
Ethan Allen

 

[☭proletarian☭]

t I could be totally wrong.

You usually are.


If DNA were a sphere, you'd say God had to make it a sphere, it appeared pseudo-random, you'd claim it couldn't make sense of itself and 'know' where to find a given piece of itself without God.

You think there's a god? Fine, there's your hypothesis. Now go out and find evidence that supports your hypothesis over established theories and models and stop being an IDiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not all appeals to authority fail. If I am weighing comments about why the Civil War began for instance, I certainly will consider Alexander Stephens or Abraham Lincoln's comments far more valid that those of Kevin Kennedy or Proletarian based solely on the credibility of the person making the statement.

This sounds pretty reasonable at least.

But considering the credibility of the person who wrote it, it's validity remains highly in question.

Appeal to authority. Fail.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

t I could be totally wrong.

You usually are.


If DNA were a sphere, you'd say God had to make it a sphere, it appeared pseudo-random, you'd claim it couldn't make sense of itself and 'know' where to find a given piece of itself without God.

You think there's a god? Fine, there's your hypothesis. Now go out and find evidence that supports your hypothesis over established theories and models and stop being an IDiot.

When did I say god created the DNA double helix or man or life for that matter?

Just point that out to me since I forgot ever saying those things.

All I ever said was darwin doesn't expalin everything and I'm all for people using science to explore other possibilities.

If DNA was a sphere I would say "maybe we were designed by space aliens. Maybe it just was an awesome series of random events. Maybe there is a "creator" out there. I for one dont know so I'm all for science exploring it to help us learn more."

You need to bring a more honest reply about my positions and opijons next time and less assumptions about what I may, or may not, believe.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

All I ever said was darwin doesn't expalin everything

Noone ever said he did; that's why his theory's always being refined.

Only theists claim that anyone thinks evolution begins and ends with Darwin.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All I ever said was darwin doesn't expalin everything

Noone ever said he did; that's why his theory's always being refined.

Only theists claim that anyone thinks evolution begins and ends with Darwin.

Then why do you appear to be against scientists exploring it further in ways such as how the scientists exploring creationism are doing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

All I ever said was darwin doesn't expalin everything

Noone ever said he did; that's why his theory's always being refined.

Only theists claim that anyone thinks evolution begins and ends with Darwin.

Then why do you appear to be against scientists exploring it further in ways such as how the scientists exploring creationishm are doing?

The appropriate place for such an examination academically would be in philosophy (of science), liberal arts, humanties, and comparative religion classes, not in biology classes. Why? Because creationism cannot be validated scientifically.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Is plyg really as stupid as his posts make him look?

IDiots are doing nothing to study anything to do with science, they are opposed to real science because it debunks their religion.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Noone ever said he did; that's why his theory's always being refined.

Only theists claim that anyone thinks evolution begins and ends with Darwin.

Then why do you appear to be against scientists exploring it further in ways such as how the scientists exploring creationishm are doing?

The appropriate place for such an examination academically would be in philosophy (of science), liberal arts, humanties, and comparative religion classes, not in biology classes. Why? Because creationism cannot be validated scientifically.

This statement of belief by scoffers is common. Evolution is a believed process to explain our origins. In thousands of years of human farming and ranching it has never been recorded as occurring. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils that ive read about. The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating millions of years do not stand up to testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny.

I like to alter the usual debate wording at times for effect. Macro-evolution (from molecules to man, automatically over time) is strongly believed by its adherents but it is not the only theory in town. I'm glad that faith in this being true is considered science by many.

Show me with physical evidence where a single celled orgnaism turned into a mammal without any missing links.

All i'm saying is it is very foolish for any of us to close our mind to any other possibilities and denounce people who wish to explore evolution deeper using the scientific method as those scientists who are exploring the idea of creationism are doing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Is plyg really as stupid as his posts make him look?

IDiots are doing nothing to study anything to do with science, they are opposed to real science because it debunks their religion.

So you can't answer my challenges...didn't think so.

Post back when you have something real like Jake did.

 

[Gadawg73]

Noone ever said he did; that's why his theory's always being refined.

Only theists claim that anyone thinks evolution begins and ends with Darwin.

Then why do you appear to be against scientists exploring it further in ways such as how the scientists exploring creationishm are doing?

The appropriate place for such an examination academically would be in philosophy (of science), liberal arts, humanties, and comparative religion classes, not in biology classes. Why? Because creationism cannot be validated scientifically.

Well said.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Then why do you appear to be against scientists exploring it further in ways such as how the scientists exploring creationishm are doing?

The appropriate place for such an examination academically would be in philosophy (of science), liberal arts, humanties, and comparative religion classes, not in biology classes. Why? Because creationism cannot be validated scientifically.

Well said.

I agree which is why i repped him. I'm all for being challenged in an intelligent manner.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

[

This statement of belief by scoffers is common. Evolution is a believed process to explain our origins.

fail. Evolution is an observed fact. Ever seen a parent with its child? Heard of Flavobacterium capable of metabolizing nylonase?

Of course not, because you don't care about science or truth.

In thousands of years of human farming and ranching it has never been recorded as occurring.

Ever heard of the banana, Mr. Comfort?

There are still no bona fide transitional fossils that ive read about.

Because you've never read a book in your life.

The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating millions of years do not stand up to testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny.

Actually, they do, and the dates are confirmed using other methods.

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)

I like to alter the usual debate wording at times for effect

In other words, you lie, make things up, and twist things to suit your end because you're a dishonest individual.

. Macro-evolution

No such distinction exists as micro-macro.

(from molecules to man, automatically over time)

Fail.

is strongly believed by its adherents but it is not the only theory in town.

Actually, it is.

Show me with physical evidence where a single celled orgnaism turned into a mammal without any missing links.

You're an idiot.An amoeba turning into a man would be magic, not evolution.

All i'm saying is it is very foolish for any of us to close our mind to any other possibilities and denounce people who wish to explore evolution deeper using the scientific method as those scientists who are exploring the idea of creationism are doing.

Yes, it is very foolish to close our minds as creationists are doing- yet you do it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The appropriate place for such an examination academically would be in philosophy (of science), liberal arts, humanties, and comparative religion classes, not in biology classes. Why? Because creationism cannot be validated scientifically.

Well said.

I agree which is why i repped him. I'm all for being challenged in an intelligent manner.

First you must say something intelligent.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well said.

I agree which is why i repped him. I'm all for being challenged in an intelligent manner.

First you must say something intelligent.

Pot Meet Kettle.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

LOL

By implying that I say nothing intelligent and that I am like you in that regard, you have said you yourself have said nothing intelligent.

 

[manifold]

Is plyg really as stupid as his posts make him look?

I don't think so, but he does one heckuva great impersonation of the terminally stupid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Is plyg really as stupid as his posts make him look?

I don't think so, but he does one heckuva great impersonation of the terminally stupid.

Sometimes you mistake stuborness for stupidity manifold .

Just waiting for someone to give me a VIALBLE and intelligent reason to change my mind.

 

[manifold]

Is plyg really as stupid as his posts make him look?

I don't think so, but he does one heckuva great impersonation of the terminally stupid.

Sometimes you mistake stuborness for stupidity manifold .

Just waiting for someone to give me a VIALBLE and intelligent reason to change my mind.

If I actually thought you honestly believed the dren you're spewing, I might consider trying to educate you.

But I know better.