Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Answers
1 The barrier is our design. Although we could become taller, shorter, or different colors through natural selection, it wouldn't make us grow a third arm because we needed to wipe our ass at the same time we are picking our nose and masterbating. (Its humor, laugh a little)
RNA is the blueprint of our make-up, so its like a computer program being executed. Maybe we that is just the limitations of our design.
This is just a thought, I really don't know enough to come up with a better one.2 I don't need to falsify the entire fossil record. Most of the time the scientist do it for me. They put things in order that suite the TOE and then connect the gaps with lines making you think there is a connection between species. So the fossil record speaks for itself.For instance, most charts of the fossil record I have seen show the species from the cambrian period developing at different times so that they can connect lines together to show how TOE would make sense, when in actuality it was an explosion of different species, that when shown on a true time line wouldn't make sense or fit into the TOE.3 What does morphological similarity and genetic similarity have to do with common decent? Isn't it becasue things that morph also would be similiar genetically, its the way they were designed. Just like a honda is very similiar to a toyota lol.
When you started learning about science, you started with the easy stuff first, didn't you?Let me ask you a few questions. When was the first complex life form here on earth? And how many base pairs of DNA where there in it?Yes I believe we should teach TOE, and about God too.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 08-26-2004 06:39 AM

Thanks for putting not only words in my mouth, but now thoughts in my head, great. Is that how you conduct your scientific research as well? No I don't, I have a very open mind. Which means absolutly nothing to me. When those actual scientists wake up in the morning, they have a hard-on, and need to piss, just like me. Just like a priest too. We all crap on the same pot.
I know exactly my limitations, and I am very honest about it. But just because someone may know more about TOE than me, doesn't make him/her actually smarter than me. I have many skills in life, more than you would ever think.There are actual scientists who don't believe in the TOE, what about them? Are they just stupid scientists?What misconceptions do I have? And at what point if any where pointed out to me, that I didn't admit I was wrong. I am always willing to learn. I believe I pointed this out to you already. It is not about how SCIENTISTS use and devolope it. Go back and read the topic.As far as scientists go anyway, what drives them to prove the TOE? Isn't it to discover how life came about here on earth? If they don't believe in God, then I think its very clear as to what drives them to do this. Anyone who has ever speculated on what exactly started life here on earth always mentions TOE as part of it.

No, I just wouldn't compare theories side by side like you are doing.
There are and were many stupid theories in science. Like this one:
http://www.everytingjamaican.com/jamaicatalk/t421
Should I compare TOE to that one?
Should I compare the engine that is in Joe Amatos dragster that makes 3000 horesepower, to the one in your car? Yes, and the TOE.
Should I compare the 2 ?
Does one theory make the other one valid or invalid?
Should I use the fact that I think the atomic theory could be correct to believe that the TOE is correct. Because thats what your are suggesting, which is not a very good suggestion, and not very scientific of you.

How did you get that from what I said?
You see how complex your brain is?Do all dumb people believe in God? Thats what your saying.This is exactly the quality in dumb people that I am talking about. I don't think a dumb person would have ever got what you did from what I said.Why don't you just put all that brain power you got, and knowledge of nothing to the side for a second to see who you really are. Thats the person I want to know. Thats who God wants to know.

Great you said it, now please prove it. Yes I agree. Would the fact that I agree not make it completely wrong in 2000 years?
Its a theory, and isn't it fact that it just might be wrong? I think its our athiestic school system that turns evolution into a religion, not scientists. I think scientists would the TOE in a heartbeat to say there is no God, but they can't do that based on the evidence. But that doesn't stop them from trying to complete their mission.
Not all scientists, I must tell you again. No, I think what they are doing is good. Someone has to rebuttal TOE in some sort of fasion and let the public know that it is just a theory, and it doen't disprove God. Every program or video or debate I have seen on TOE verses creation, the creationalists always says that they do not have any problems with the TOE. They just feel like it should not be taught as law in our schools, and they should also include teaching about God in our schools. I feel the same way. So then, what would make it a religion for you, whats the criteria?

Its no joke. Check here:
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c7/c7h.htmWhat I'm saying is seeing how most people don't get it, we have to be careful what we teach them. Most people would just take it as golden.
There is a large percentage of people who think the sun goes around the earth. Ask these people if there is a God, and I bet you some of them would say there can't be any God we evolved.Laugh at that one. But that is not true. Jesus taught us exactly how to recieve the Holy Spirit, and have eternal life. It is an experiment that anyone can do, but it requires all of your heart. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, you may feel differently about what you just said.
Just because its a lot more difficult than spinning something around in a centerfuge, and looking at under a spectrograph, doesn't make it invalid. Irregardless of relilgious convictions would elemenate the experimant completely.If science claimed that something happened by the supernatural, it would just be a theory. One that couldn't be proven right now, but none the less a theory, sound familiar?

riVeRraT So if you need to first believe that it is true then what makes you think it is anything other than wishful thinking and a self-induced illusion? In other words why is it required for belief to occur before the effect if the effect is real? Science requires empirical evidence and not mind games. This is the way in which science avoids fooling itelf through pre-concieved ideas seperate from the reality of the material world.
It is quite easy to see that human desires for comfort go along way to explaining the supposed "reality" of the experience of the holy spirit effect that it is claimed by people to occur to them.Fear of death and imagined futilty of existence lead people to drop their critical mind and accept things on an emotional basis rather than subject the process to questioning.

quote:

---

1 The barrier is our design. Although we could become taller, shorter, or different colors through natural selection, it wouldn't make us grow a third arm because we needed to wipe our ass at the same time we are picking our nose and masterbating. (Its humor, laugh a little)
RNA is the blueprint of our make-up, so its like a computer program being executed. Maybe we that is just the limitations of our design.
This is just a thought, I really don't know enough to come up with a better one.

---

Sorry, this isn't really an answer.We have directly observed species changing in response to environmental pressure.What is the mechanism by which many of these small changes are prevented from accumulating, over time, into large changes?

quote:

---

2 I don't need to falsify the entire fossil record. Most of the time the scientist do it for me. They put things in order that suite the TOE

---

Actually, the ordering of the fossil layers was done by Creationists decades before the ToE was a twinkle in Darwin's eye.Please stop making claims about things that you don't know anything about.And anyway, can you please give an explanation, then, of why the fossil record appears as it does if the Paleontologists have it totally wrong?For example, why are flowering plants not ever found below a certain layer?

quote:

---

and then connect the gaps with lines making you think there is a connection between species.

---

Why do you think there aren't connections between species?What overwhelming evidence do you have which refutes the entire fossil tree of life, or even just part of it?How do you account for the amazing congruence between morphological trees of life and genetic trees of life if the ToE is false?I am open to your evidence.Please provide it, and give specific examples.

quote:

---

For instance, most charts of the fossil record I have seen show the species from the cambrian period developing at different times so that they can connect lines together to show how TOE would make sense, when in actuality it was an explosion of different species, that when shown on a true time line wouldn't make sense or fit into the TOE.

---

This is interesting.Do you have a link to a detailed description of this?Since you are making a very serious accusation of outright fraud on the part of hundersd of thousands of scienctists, maintained for hundreds of years, I hope you are well-prepared to provide a great deal of evidence to back it up.Otherwise, I fully expect a retraction and an apology for making such a serious accusation without just cause.

quote:

---

3 What does morphological similarity and genetic similarity have to do with common decent?

---

Are you seriously asking this question?

quote:

---

Isn't it becasue things that morph also would be similiar genetically, its the way they were designed. Just like a honda is very similiar to a toyota lol.

---

Cars do not reproduce themselves with DNA, do they, so comparing them to organisms which do is not useful.You are also not understanding the scientific terminology I have used."Morphology" refers to the physical construction of an organism, as opposed to it's genetic code.It doesn't refer to "things that morph".So, "morphological similarity" between species means that species are more or less similar in construction, and the morphological tree of life shows how all species are related to each other using these greater or lesser similarities in structure to show common descent.When DNA and it's role in heredity was discovered a few decades ago, scientists began constructing another tree of life, this time based upon genetic similarity between species, with the more genetically similar species being mapped as more closely related, and the less genetically similar species being mapped farther apart.As it turns out, the morphological and genetic trees of life are extremely similar.If all life isn't related, and if it doesn't all descend from a common ancestor, why would these two trees of life be so similar?

quote:

---

Let me ask you a few questions.

​

When was the first complex life form here on earth?

---

Please define exactly what you mean by the term "complex life".

quote:

---

Yes I believe we should teach TOE, and about God too.

---

Do you believe that God should be included in science class?If so, why?

I never said you had to believe its true first.
You can accept something without actually beliving in it, that is where the faith comes in. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, then its no longer accepting by faith, you'll know its there.I looked for God for 13 years, and accepted Christ for 5 before I ever recieved the Holy Spirit. I really wasn't expecting to happen what happened. Its when that happens that you'll understand.Then with the Holy Spirit, there are 9 gifts associated with him. You can recieve any one of the 9 or all of them. These are things that I couldn't do before. All in the name of Jesus.

Because we are dealing with a spiritual reality. The effect is real whether or not we acknowledge it. I am not sure if the supernatural will ever be captured scientifically. Not because it is a wishful fraud, however. Because of the very nature of the conflict behind it. I can't argue with your logic here. Many of us do feel secure in the belief of a Creator who is on our side. Imagine if He were out to get us! We would have already of been "Got!"

quote:

---

But just because someone may know more about TOE than me, doesn't make him/her actually smarter than me.

---

No, of course not.However, it is likely that a professional scientist would know a great deal more about the scientific method than you do, correct?And you would likely be able to gain an accurate and correct view of the method used by professional scientists if you were to listen to professional scientists when they tell you about it, don't you think?

quote:

---

There are actual scientists who don't believe in the TOE, what about them? Are they just stupid scientists?

---

I will include here what TalkOrigins says on this subject:(emphasis added by me)

quote:

---

What misconceptions do I have?

---

Please briefly describe the scientific method as scientists use it.I'll bet you can't.

quote:

---

As far as scientists go anyway, what drives them to prove the TOE?

---

...and this is one of your misconceptions.Scientists do not "try to prove" the ToE.The evidence supports the ToE, not scientists.

quote:

---

Isn't it to discover how life came about here on earth?

---

No.The ToE deals with life ONCE IT GOT HERE, not before, as you have been told numerous times.What was that you were saying about being "always willing to learn"? Why haven't you learned the above, despite being corrected over and over again?

quote:

---

Anyone who has ever speculated on what exactly started life here on earth always mentions TOE as part of it.

---

Really? Please provide 5 examples of the Chemists who work on this issue that mention the ToE in their peer-reviewed professional paper.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-26-2004 09:22 AM

Let's see.You claim most scientists do it for you.How about a pointer to a peer reviewed scientific journal that falsifies the fossil record. Notice, I said 'peer reviewed scientific journal'.
That leaves out the "institute for creation research" or any other psuedo-science place who has a 'statement of faith'.This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-26-2004 09:44 AMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 08-26-2004 09:47 AM

quote:

---

No, I just wouldn't compare theories side by side like you are doing.

​

There are and were many stupid theories in science. Like this one:
http://www.everytingjamaican.com/jamaicatalk/t421

---

Your link leads to the results of a single study, not an overarching scientific theory which unifies several entire scientific fields.That's why I chose other overarching, unifying scientific theories to compare the ToE to, such as the Germ theory of Disease and the Atomic Theory of Matter.The reason I asked you, "Do you often just ignore what people write" was because I had already explained to you why the fact that we couldn't literally "see" atoms did not have any relevance to if the Atomic Theory of Matter qualified as a scientific theory or not, contrary to what you claimed.So, this is now the third time I have addressed this claim of yours without a response from you.What was that you were saying about always being willing to learn?

quote:

---

Should I compare TOE to that one?

---

Well, no, because of the reasons I outlined above.It would be more reasonable to compare the ToE to the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter, as I have done.

quote:

---

Should I use the fact that I think the atomic theory could be correct to believe that the TOE is correct. Because thats what your are suggesting, which is not a very good suggestion, and not very scientific of you.

---

Yet again, you have lost track of your own argument.You said in message 453:

quote:

---

But being a scientist means that you shouldn't believe in whats not proven.
It should also mean to not exclusivly push something on someone because you think its right.

---

I replied: You said:

quote:

---

but 30 years ago it was taught like it was true.

---

I then have spent dozens of subsequent posts insisting that you answer those questions while you have done your best to avoid them.My point in beating you over the head with these last two questions is that you hold a terrible double standard with regards to scientific theories.If you accept other overarching, basic scientific theories but not the ToE, then you are being very inconsistent.This is very good evidence that you reject the ToE on purely religious grounds, since you thus far have not been able to produce any scientific evidence whatsoever to refute any part of it.

Thats natural selection, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean an ant will become a human j/k Please prove that one. I don't know, I have seen so many different arrangements of the fossil record.
The correct arrangement would show things happening on a time line by date without the actual lines connecting species. That would be truth. Doesn't matter what I think. It would be incorrect to show that as proven. We have no proof as of yet to those lines between gaps. I don't have to account for anything, I am not claiming anything beyond the truth, you are the one who has to account for evidence between lines. And if that theory is not proven, then I won't believe in it. I will take it for what its worth. Most of what I have seen was in the science books that we learned in school with. With creationalists on the seen now, many scientists have made sure that the mistakes aren't printed anymore, because they know the riddicule they will get for posting a map of the fossil record like that these days. But here are some links showing what I'm talking about:
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~gel107/w04_vermeij/
Life on Earth
Salticidae
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/...res/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/...ty_of_the_fossil_record_thr.htm
Pharyngula - Hotell anbefalinger Barcelona
http://universe-review.ca/I10-02-TreeOfLife.jpgAll those pages show lines connecting the gaps.
I see no need for an apology.This page shows the difference between a darwin evolutionary time scale and the actual time scale.
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God Yes I am. Cars have a blueprint from which the factory makes them, as do our bodys, our blue print is in our RNA and DNA. Ok, I'm trying to keep up with you here, thanks for taking the time to explain things to me.But, wouldn't it be obvious why the two are so similiar since our genetic code determines how we are constructed?
To me it only proves that DNA complexity is in tune with morphological complexity. I would expect that if I was created or I evolved. Oh, I don't know, say any species during the cambrian period that we could have evolved from. No, its not science. But I do believe God should be taught in the schools, to at least give kids the knowledge of him, so that they can choose for themselves. To not teach it is like saying he doesn't exist period.Just look at the crime rate WITHIN the school system since 1962 when they took God out of the classroom. They didn't even bother to replace it with some sort of moral system to teach kids morals and quality of life. Kids today have no morals and will do anything they want, and the only persons they have to answer to is their parents, and we all know how a lot of parents are in this nation.
Either they are to busy trying to make a buck, because both parents have to work, or they just don't care, or they themselves don't have any morals. Also a 50% divorce rate isn't helping our children. Its no wonder people choose to be gay and not have kids, its the perfect solution to a f'd up world we live in.
(starts another controversy)
I hope you have kids and you know what I'm talking about.Try working with some kids, if you haven't already, you'll get a glimpse into who and what they are.
Then with 90% of the population being scientifically illterate, tell me our schools are doing a good job of teaching our kids.

quote:

---

How did you get that from what I said?

---

Because that is pretty much what you said:

quote:

---

Unfortunatly the devil weaves a very tangled web, and it seems to me that the smarter you are the more weaves you have to go through to find the truth. This why I have said before that "stupid", or "not so smart" people have a quality that I admire.

---

This statement strongly implies to me that you think that the dumber you are, the faster and easier it is for you to find the truth about God.That must mean that God favors dumb people.

quote:

---

You see how complex your brain is?

---

Yes, it really is a burden to be so smart.

quote:

---

Do all dumb people believe in God? Thats what your saying.

---

No, that is incorrect.YOU said that the smarter one is, the harder it is to find the Truth about God.You then went on to say how much you admire dumbness in a person because this dumbness makes it easier to find God.I then made the observation that God must like dumb people best, because that is the easiest route to find out the Truth about Him.Nowhere did I say that I thought that ALL dumb people believe in God.

quote:

---

This is exactly the quality in dumb people that I am talking about. I don't think a dumb person would have ever got what you did from what I said.

---

ROTFLMAO!This is funny, considering you actually got what I said completely wrong.