****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

I see golddigger/masteroforion is up to his usual antics....

ETA: Just ignore him....debating him only makes him think he has a case....and he doesn't

There has never been a better trainwreck of a poster on this board.We need to unite in a common cause to egg golddigger on.

He linked a butterfly video made by a Philosopher of Biology as backing.... you can't make this #### up!

 

[MasterofOrion]

here is a very recent article about dark matter.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

 

[Frostillicus]

You're welcome.

Pretty sure this is just a TannerBoyle alias.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

Which one do you think you proved, and how did you prove it?

 

[shader]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

I never have once posted that I think God created a universe with "wear and tear" on it. Let's keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. I'm fine with 14.6 billion years or whatever the common theory is.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

I never have once posted that I think God created a universe with "wear and tear" on it. Let's keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. I'm fine with 14.6 billion years or whatever the common theory is.

Sure keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. How is you being fine with 14.6 billion years anything other than crossing out one of the either-or options? How does that nugget of info refute anything else I stated?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

You can't even deflect without a link. Good grief. Turn off the google machine.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

If I go point by point you will miss the point.

Why not just respond to what he says? I think that would be a lot more constructive than just posting a bunch of links. He spent the time to respond to you, why wouldn't you give him the same courtesy?

 

[Frostillicus]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

You can't even deflect without a link. Good grief. Turn off the google machine.

Maybe if you'd stop ducking him and have a real chemical engineering debate the rest of us could figure out what to believe. But no. Ridicule him for doing nothing but posting links and cutting and pasting from sites with clear creationist agendas. These threads are always so embarrassing for you Pickles. Just like farting in line at Costco with a cart full of toothpaste and animal crackers.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

You can't even deflect without a link. Good grief. Turn off the google machine.

I responded to your post and you respond back with ridicule. Good Grief. I listened to your 1 hour video and commented on it. I even researched it . That is part of the process. I am trying to engage you into something higher that ridicule. Is that all you got? really?

 

[MasterofOrion]

If I go point by point you will miss the point.

Why not just respond to what he says? I think that would be a lot more constructive than just posting a bunch of links. He spent the time to respond to you, why wouldn't you give him the same courtesy?

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

If I go point by point you will miss the point.

Why not just respond to what he says? I think that would be a lot more constructive than just posting a bunch of links. He spent the time to respond to you, why wouldn't you give him the same courtesy?

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

That's the point?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

You can't even deflect without a link. Good grief. Turn off the google machine.

Maybe if you'd stop ducking him and have a real chemical engineering debate the rest of us could figure out what to believe. But no. Ridicule him for doing nothing but posting links and cutting and pasting from sites with clear creationist agendas. These threads are always so embarrassing for you Pickles. Just like farting in line at Costco with a cart full of toothpaste and animal crackers.

I am not ducking anything. As far as cutting and pasting this is the original post..

 

[MasterofOrion]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

You don't engage you ridicule.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

You don't engage you ridicule.

I took the time to respond to your points. I even added color.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

MoO seems to have some kind of personal problem with Mr.P. to resort to personal attacks so soon. All I see here is Mr.P. taking the time to support his positions and MoO lashing out with personal attacks.

 

[MasterofOrion]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven. Second law of thermodynamics for example..

 

[MasterofOrion]

MoO seems to have some kind of personal problem with Mr.P. to resort to personal attacks so soon. All I see here is Mr.P. taking the time to support his positions and MoO lashing out with personal attacks.

Not true

 

[MasterofOrion]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

You don't engage you ridicule.

I took the time to respond to your points. I even added color.

It took time to respond back to you as well. I even added quote boxes and links.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

You don't engage you ridicule.

I took the time to respond to your points. I even added color.

It took time to respond back to you as well. I even added quote boxes and links.

Not civil enough discourse for you? I'm confused here.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist

 

[mad sweeney]

Your welcome

My welcome what?Like I said, the moment you post something using your own words and arguments will be your first. You're afraid to wade into the deep end. Maybe there's a reason for it.

This is answer to my post ? Ridicule rather than substance.Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Link

You can't even deflect without a link. Good grief. Turn off the google machine.

Maybe if you'd stop ducking him and have a real chemical engineering debate the rest of us could figure out what to believe. But no. Ridicule him for doing nothing but posting links and cutting and pasting from sites with clear creationist agendas. These threads are always so embarrassing for you Pickles. Just like farting in line at Costco with a cart full of toothpaste and animal crackers.

I am not ducking anything. As far as cutting and pasting this is the original post..

That was pretty obviously directed to Pickles, not you.

 

[mad sweeney]

MoO seems to have some kind of personal problem with Mr.P. to resort to personal attacks so soon. All I see here is Mr.P. taking the time to support his positions and MoO lashing out with personal attacks.

Not true

You can't just say that, you have to back it up.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven. Second law of thermodynamics for example..

What does "close to being proven" mean in a scientific sense?Oh, and you were correct earlier in that saying evolution is not the umbrella, it is more a base. A foundation.

 

[MasterofOrion]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven. Second law of thermodynamics for example..

What does "close to being proven" mean in a scientific sense?Oh, and you were correct earlier in that saying evolution is not the umbrella, it is more a base. A foundation.

Law is the highest standard in science.. It is well above being a theory. I used the word "close" as hedge, not sure I had to do that.Evolution is not a base or a foundation. In fact it isn't even well defined. It use to mean NDT (neo Darwin Evolution)., where there was a mechanism, mutation plus natural selection, that was involved in making life diverse and gradually more complex. Now all evolution means is change of time. To so mushy a definition that it is anything but a foundation.

 

[shader]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

I never have once posted that I think God created a universe with "wear and tear" on it. Let's keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. I'm fine with 14.6 billion years or whatever the common theory is.

Sure keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. How is you being fine with 14.6 billion years anything other than crossing out one of the either-or options? How does that nugget of info refute anything else I stated?

So your argument falls to "God is incompetent because he can't use evolution". That being said, God does use evolution, as we see every day. We can use empirical science and see the small mutations and changes that occur at a molecular level and even happen to humans.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven. Second law of thermodynamics for example..

What does "close to being proven" mean in a scientific sense?Oh, and you were correct earlier in that saying evolution is not the umbrella, it is more a base. A foundation.

Law is the highest standard in science.. It is well above being a theory. I used the word "close" as hedge, not sure I had to do that.Evolution is not a base or a foundation. In fact it isn't even well defined. It use to mean NDT (neo Darwin Evolution)., where there was a mechanism, mutation plus natural selection, that was involved in making life diverse and gradually more complex. Now all evolution means is change of time. To so mushy a definition that it is anything but a foundation.

Is the above post dishonesty or ignorance or both?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

I never have once posted that I think God created a universe with "wear and tear" on it. Let's keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. I'm fine with 14.6 billion years or whatever the common theory is.

Sure keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. How is you being fine with 14.6 billion years anything other than crossing out one of the either-or options? How does that nugget of info refute anything else I stated?

So your argument falls to "God is incompetent because he can't use evolution". That being said, God does use evolution, as we see every day. We can use empirical science and see the small mutations and changes that occur at a molecular level and even happen to humans.

No that is not my argument, it is the end result of yours.You argued that because "My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see" that God had to guide the process along over "14.6 billion years or whatever". This is the case because if you cannot allow for the simple mechanism of evolution to fully explain all of the diversity of life on earth you do it with or without God. You also must exclude the full power of evolution from God's bag of tricks. So every time the all knowing, all powerful God had to intervene or even chose to alter the natural course of his evolving creation he was correcting his own initial mistakes or changing his mind. That is why your claims end up asserting that God was incompetent to get creation right the first time.Creationism and/or intelligent design is not just non science it is a lack of faith in God.

 

[Jayrok]

God does use evolution, as we see every day. We can use empirical science and see the small mutations and changes that occur at a molecular level and even happen to humans.

So do you consider the creation story in Genesis to be allegory? For instance, do you believe an Adam and Eve created instantly from dust (or Adam's rib in Eve's case) as described or do you believe they evolved from earlier species and that part in Genesis is fiction? How does a theistic evolutionist read Genesis?

 

[MasterofOrion]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven.

Second law of thermodynamics for example..

What does "close to being proven" mean in a scientific sense?Oh, and you were correct earlier in that saying evolution is not the umbrella, it is more a base. A foundation.

Law is the highest standard in science.. It is well above being a theory. I used the word "close" as hedge, not sure I had to do that.Evolution is not a base or a foundation. In fact it isn't even well defined. It use to mean NDT (neo Darwin Evolution)., where there was a mechanism, mutation plus natural selection, that was involved in making life diverse and gradually more complex. Now all evolution means is change of time. To so mushy a definition that it is anything but a foundation.

Is the above post dishonesty or ignorance or both?

Explain please.Evolution definition has changed over the years. For a very long time is Modern Evolution synthesis or NDT (neo Darwin evolution) was the standard. NDT has failed. We have new modern evolution theories which goes by the term Evo Devo. We also have found out that switches, found in what we thought was junk DNA, are very important to heritable change- this is called epigenetics. We also have found that by gene sequencing, mapping the DNA, that horizontal gene transfer is rampant at the lower levels and convergent evolution is rampant at higher levels. This has really screwed up homology and the tree of life. Example, Look at this question from a creationist web site which shows how the Tree of Life is really messed up. Truth is we don't have a known mechanism that makes organisms more complex over time. We have lots of ideas, but nothing to support why life evolved.

So the question is, what is evolution over and beyond change over time?

 

[Addai's Adidas]

You can't argue with the ignorant, so I wish you evolutionists would stop.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

Well it's a fundamental difference in the way you approach the entire universe.Obviously, if you refuse to accept a Creator that lives outside of the physical universe, then the fact that we are all here REQUIRES that you believe in evolution. Obviously, how else would we be here? So to a staunch atheist, there is no question at all about whether evolution happened, because here we are.I'm not as interested in what I can test scientifically, I'm interested in what the truth is, and in what really happened.My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see, just due to blind chance. Obviously, I feel there had to be something that designed it. That basic outlook is as simple as 1+1 to me. But others disagree, and they have that right. But neither side can prove how it all happened, and I have more faith in God and the things I feel he left us, than I do in science and their ability to eventually prove that it all happened by chance.Because like it or not, we are here, and we either were created by God or we evolved. We can debate all day long, but one group is right and one is wrong. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe.So back to your question, I'm perfectly comfortable taking certain things out of the theory of evolution, because I have allowed for the existence of a force that exists outside of the physical world. If you don't allow for that, than you obviously cannot take out parts of the theory of evolution, because you've already determined that there is no possibility for a God regardless of what obstacles you find. So a person in that state just chalks up any challenges to the fact that science is still learning and moves on, completely comfortable in their beliefs.

I think that your post here makes Bill Nye's point perfectly. You reject evolution simply because you lack any real understanding of it. You were never properly taught (or you were unwilling to be taught) enough of the basics to intelligibly evaluate anything. And your lack of knowledge ultimately results in demonstrating a lack of faith in God as your "fall back position" necessitates that God either be deceptive and/or incompetent. Deceptive in creating a universe with billions of years of wear and tear on it to lead our understanding off the universe astray. Incompetent if God cannot use the wonderfully simple mechanism of evolution to evolve the primordial ooze to creatures created in "God's image". If God is worth worshiping then God should not be afraid that we use our God given abilities to learn how God "did it", nor should Christians. If knowledge actually drives people from God then that is damning evidence against the existence of God.

I never have once posted that I think God created a universe with "wear and tear" on it. Let's keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. I'm fine with 14.6 billion years or whatever the common theory is.

Sure keep it relevant and not throw false attacks. How is you being fine with 14.6 billion years anything other than crossing out one of the either-or options? How does that nugget of info refute anything else I stated?

So your argument falls to "God is incompetent because he can't use evolution". That being said, God does use evolution, as we see every day. We can use empirical science and see the small mutations and changes that occur at a molecular level and even happen to humans.

No that is not my argument, it is the end result of yours.You argued that because "My brain doesn't allow for the construction of the universe, DNA and the structure and order of everything we see" that God had to guide the process along over "14.6 billion years or whatever". This is the case because if you cannot allow for the simple mechanism of evolution to fully explain all of the diversity of life on earth you do it with or without God. You also must exclude the full power of evolution from God's bag of tricks. So every time the all knowing, all powerful God had to intervene or even chose to alter the natural course of his evolving creation he was correcting his own initial mistakes or changing his mind. That is why your claims end up asserting that God was incompetent to get creation right the first time.Creationism and/or intelligent design is not just non science it is a lack of faith in God.

In a way you are playing God If I was God I would have made creation perfect the first time? Problem is we don't know why God did it the way He did it, but that does not mean He did not have a very good reason for doing it the way He did. We shouldn't be so presumptuous to think our thoughts are greater than his .

No I'm not! I haven't questioned God or his motives at all. If one asserts a belief in God's existence as the creator and then concurrently asserts that the "full theory of evolution" is impossible because their "brain doesn't allow it" they are saying the "full theory of evolution" was also impossible for God.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How does a theistic evolutionist read Genesis?

Genesis is the story of those that were the last to adapt to the end of the last ice age when man could just roam the fertile valleys and hunt and gather whatever they needed from God's bounty. From the various Edens that are being flooded once again as the seas rise. God's chosen people did not move to the new civilized world (represented by all of the sinful decadence of the tiny "cities" that shunned them) but tried to keep the hunter-gather lifestyle while roaming the barren deserts.That and that God is ultimately responsible along with original sin being man's own self reliance.

 

[Demian]

And by the way, I think evolution should be taught in the schools.

I'm assuming you want evolution taught in a public school. Does evolution stand up to the scientific method? If not, on what basis does it deserve to be taught?

Are these real questions?

I laughed out loud at work.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Thought this might be an interesting place for this little discovery, http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/08/sugar-found-floating-around-sun-like-star/#more-141359 .

 

[matuski]

If I go point by point you will miss the point.

Why not just respond to what he says? I think that would be a lot more constructive than just posting a bunch of links. He spent the time to respond to you, why wouldn't you give him the same courtesy?

this is what golddigger does.he has never posted an argument that is his own, so when they are debunked he is completely incapacitated. so he runs to the next link.

 

[matuski]

golddigger, if you spent even a fraction of the time you obviously spend reading the "how to talk to your scientist friends about creationism" on actual science, you'd do yourself a massive benefit. All you're doing with the dodging and willful ignorance is adding noise to the system, something a fan of entropy and information theory should appreciate.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

 

[Marvin]

One group has a massive amount of evidence to prove its theory and the other group says 'god did it'.

This should be the only reply whenever one of these threads pops up. Yet somehow we get sucked into to arguing with a bunch of rubes.

Well if it were true, that would be great. But since you don't have a "massive amount of evidence" to support the entire theory, you are left to ridicule, laugh and act ignorantly. You have a massive amount of evidence in some portions of the theory. But the overall theory itself? Not at all.That being said, you don't need the evidence, because you have already discounted any possibility for a creator, and because we are here. So you imagine that since it obviously happened, the details will become apparent one day.

When compared with the evidence there is for proving God exists (and obviously Creationism) it is massive.

You just keep trying to pound your completely irrational and childish belief system into your head. Let me know how that works out.

Belittle the opposition. A sure sign that you have a firm grasp on the subject matter you believe in.

I'm sorry but it's next to impossible to take you or any of the anti-Evolution crowd seriously when the essential core of your argument is "Grampa in the sky did it". Look if we were having a political discussion and I said "All you Democrats/Republicans are stupid" then you would have a point. How seriously would you take me if I said "the reason the walls of my house can support my roof is because the Great Spirit Mujimbi gives them power" or "that fire extinguisher is filled with chemicals and the breath of 20 Ice Ghosts of the 3rd realm"?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Link?

 

[Marvin]

...Evolution has to stand on its own 2 feet.

Actually Evolution can stand on its own two feet. Before that it stood on four feet. Before that it was flippers....

 

[Jayrok]

How does a theistic evolutionist read Genesis?

Genesis is the story of those that were the last to adapt to the end of the last ice age when man could just roam the fertile valleys and hunt and gather whatever they needed from God's bounty. From the various Edens that are being flooded once again as the seas rise. God's chosen people did not move to the new civilized world (represented by all of the sinful decadence of the tiny "cities" that shunned them) but tried to keep the hunter-gather lifestyle while roaming the barren deserts.That and that God is ultimately responsible along with original sin being man's own self reliance.

So Genesis, as written, is not the beginning of the earth and life on earth?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Horology is shambles based upon gene sequencing. What we thought were common ancestors are not based upon DNA. Rather we call in convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer. The point is the tree of life is a bush not a tree.Bushes not trees Excerpts from the article.

Here we discuss how and why certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available. We do not mean this essay to be a comprehensive review of molecular systematics. Rather, we have focused on the emerging evidence from genome-scale studies on several branches of the TOL that sharply contrasts with viewpoints such as that in the opening quotation [a quote by Dawkins that implies we'll get the TOL correct eventually] imply that the assembly of all branches of the TOL will simply be a matter of data collection. We view this difficulty in obtaining full resolution of particular when given substantial data as both biologically informative and a pressing methodological challenge. The recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics. Now, as the field is transformed from a data-limited to an analysis-limited discipline, it is an opportune time to do so.”

Three observations generally hold true across metazoan datasets that indicate the pervasive influence of homoplasy at these evolutionary depths. First, a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom (Figure 2D). Second, in all studies, a large fraction of characters genes, PICs or RGC disagree with the optimal phylogeny, indicating the existence of serious conflict in the DNA record. For example, the majority of PICs conflict with the optimal topology in the Dopazo and Dopazo study [10]. Third, the conflict among these and other studies in metazoan phylogenetics [11,12] is occurring at very “high taxonomic levels above or at the phylum level.

For instance, theory [34] and simulation analyses [8] predict that a small fraction of substitutions will be homoplastic by chance (about 2, depending upon model assumptions and evolutionary distances). However, analysis of the elephant/sirenian/hyrax dataset and the coelacanth/lungfish/ tetrapod dataset indicates that the actual level of homoplasy is ~10% of amino acid substitutions in the first case (178 homoplastic/1,743 total substitutions) and ~15% in the second case (588 homoplastic/3,800 total substitutions), several times greater than expected [8,34]. Similar high levels of homoplasy exist in datasets from other bushy clades [35] (unpublished data) and hold irrespective of analytical methodology [8].

“Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.”

 

[jon_mx]

I am interested in how homoplasy and bushy clades work together. Could make a good porno.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

Which one do you think you proved, and how did you prove it?

I think it is worth understanding why the theory of gravity cannot be proven, so I'll take a crack at guessing how a person might think he proved it and then explain why that wouldn't suffice.Suppose you drop an egg. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall to the ground and make a mess. Suppose this is exactly what happens when you try it. Is the theory proven?

To be sure, your experimental result was exactly what the theory predicted. The theory is thus not disproven. But "proven" and "not disproven" are not the same thing.

For one thing, you can't be sure that your observation really was consistent with the theory. The theory of gravity doesn't simply predict that the egg will fall; it predicts that the egg will fall at a very specific rate. How do you know that the rate wasn't off in this case by 0.0000002% or so? Maybe your experiment did disprove the theory and you didn't even realize it.

More importantly, the theory of gravity doesn't predict simply that a dropped egg might fall toward the ground once in a while. It predicts that it will happen every time. If you can prove the theory of gravity by dropping a few eggs, then I can prove my theory that a roulette ball never lands on red 15 by giving the wheel a few spins. There is in fact no way to prove a universal theory with a finite number of trials.

The most you can say about the theory of gravity is that none of our observations so far are inconsistent with the theory, to the best of our measurements. But that's exactly what we can say about the theory of evolution as well. Both theories have been confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed — but never proven.

 

[Marvin]

MoO's CTRL button must be worn to the bone by now.