Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My overall view from this boards.
Luis_H
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 57 (15754)
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


I'm new here. For the past month or so I've just been reading and not posting.
When I first got here I though it that both sides of this issue would be on an even deadlock, but to my surprise it isn't like that. Evolutionist seem to have the upper hand here.
Every time an issue is presented to creationist, they respond well, at the beginning. However, when evolutionist start discussing the issue with a lot of detail, creationist back off. Maybe they don't all the facts, or maybe, and this I think is the case, there is little or no facts to discuss. However when creationist present a piece of evidence that helps their cause, there's always like 3 or 4 EVOs countering with very good points. Not just at the beginning, but throughout the entire post.
In conclusion, I think creationist keep arguing this issue to prove to themselves that they haven't wasted the vast majority of their life believing in something that is not real. The issue IMHO has already been won by the evolution side. Creationist can keep on arguing, but they're just grabbing straws.
Darwin's theory has helped us so much. Especially in medical science. I don't where we, as a human race, would be if the theory of natural selection hadn't been applied to medicine.
But I think this theory can help us even more. If everybody believed in it, it would certainly change most people's perspective of themselves in this world. I'm sure most would come to the conclusion that I have: We belong to this world, this world does not belong to us like religion would have you belive. Maybe if most people felt like this, we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we have now. The U.S. certainly wouldn't have any problems with the middle east since religion would be irrelevant.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 08-26-2002 11:39 AM Luis_H has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2002 2:23 PM Luis_H has not replied
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Luis_H has not replied
 Message 12 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 3:18 AM Luis_H has not replied
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-11-2002 11:59 AM Luis_H has not replied
 Message 51 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 2:17 AM Luis_H has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 2 of 57 (16072)
08-26-2002 10:20 AM


Very astute observations.

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 3 of 57 (16073)
08-26-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Luis_H
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


quote:
But I think this theory can help us even more. If everybody believed in it, it would certainly change most people's perspective of themselves in this world. I'm sure most would come to the conclusion that I have: We belong to this world, this world does not belong to us like religion would have you belive. Maybe if most people felt like this, we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we have now.
JM: Indeed this argument has been forwarded many times by environmentalists! The basic difference, I think, is that creationists have already made their conclusions and seek out snippets of modern science that apparently support those conclusions. Once the details are opened up, the realization comes that creationists skipped the details and the threads disappear into oblivion. This is happening right now to the baumgardner thread and the radiometric dating thread. Past journeys into oblivion can be found by looking at the history of the page. One thing you can be certain of, like the Phoenix, these arguments (sans details) will be raised from the ashes tima and again by creationists with the same results.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Luis_H, posted 08-20-2002 2:28 AM Luis_H has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 57 (16076)
08-26-2002 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Luis_H
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


The problem here is as Joe makes it APPEAR; for it is simply asserted that what details I may go into are NOT SCIENCE and yet I seem to USE more science than the evolutionists on this board can sue. So for the legality you are observing correctly. There seems to be more "evolution" info here than "creation" but believe it or not more words are acutally NEEDED to support (toes of evoltuion) than exist in Daniel so that a creationist often wins the sentence or post part while the evolutionist simply adds another line. At some point one's faculty of judging becomes active and one can navigate the board on ones own. But it does take some time to gain enough experience and familiarity with the different authorial styles after one logs on etc.
So I do not think that it is true that the creationist position I purport to support has been given as much weight as I dedicate to it but that is as much my fault for making the density unbearble at times as it is for the readers with some sophistication that simply have CHOSEN not to read the post just as they likely had already been presented the GOSPEL. As for Christians in Science I am quite settled in my ability to work through the history when I need to deleve a little deeper to bring some more electro-magnetisim to the issue of saving what is salvagable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Luis_H, posted 08-20-2002 2:28 AM Luis_H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 7:21 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 57 (16078)
08-26-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Luis_H
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


Luis
Most of the proof of evoltuion turns out to be for the part of evolution that we agree with. We love Galapogos, mutating viruses, bacteria generating antibiotic resistance, peppered moths - it's all OK with us.
Then you guys jump to homology both anatomical and molecular shouting in triumph as if God couldn't create animals that used the same underlying biochemistry or sampled anatomical space completely! Why should created animals that are more similar not have more similar biochemistry!
We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Luis_H, posted 08-20-2002 2:28 AM Luis_H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2002 8:45 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 8 by John, posted 08-27-2002 12:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 08-27-2002 1:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 08-27-2002 2:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 52 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 2:23 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 57 (16080)
08-26-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brad McFall
08-26-2002 2:23 PM


Brad
I knew you'd get some EM into that post. I think I agree with what you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 08-26-2002 2:23 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 57 (16105)
08-27-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 6:49 PM


I take issue with "common sense" and evidence for creation. Common sense would indicate there is no responsive greater intelligent being. Rather than common sense a creation hypothesis has to provide a testable hypothesis and then gather evidence to support it. Such a hypotheis is not forthcoming. Saying that the sky is blue because I think God/Puff the Magic Dragon/any given diety painted it that way is relying on fantasy and not science and is in no way a testable hypothesis. Niether is saying I don't understand something so therefore it has to be caused by some mythical diety that I have no evidence for. It betrays the "extreme bias" of the creationists for mythology over science.
It is also therefore not surprising that Luis has come to the conclusion that creationism is not particularly compelling.
Cheers,
Mammuthus
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Luis
Most of the proof of evoltuion turns out to be for the part of evolution that we agree with. We love Galapogos, mutating viruses, bacteria generating antibiotic resistance, peppered moths - it's all OK with us.
Then you guys jump to homology both anatomical and molecular shouting in triumph as if God couldn't create animals that used the same underlying biochemistry or sampled anatomical space completely! Why should created animals that are more similar not have more similar biochemistry!
We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 08-27-2002 7:00 PM Mammuthus has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 57 (16115)
08-27-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 6:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Luis
Most of the proof of evoltuion turns out to be for the part of evolution that we agree with. We love Galapogos, mutating viruses, bacteria generating antibiotic resistance, peppered moths - it's all OK with us.

So long as it is never taken to its logical conclusion. Or, so long as there is a line magically seperating 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable' variation.
quote:
Then you guys jump to homology both anatomical and molecular shouting in triumph as if God couldn't create animals that used the same underlying biochemistry or sampled anatomical space completely!
But why should God create as you describe?
Why modify a boat to drive on land, when you could just make a car to start with? And no, I am not talking about evolution. Why modify a car to fly when you can just build a proper airplane from the get-go? This is the kind of thing you see in the fossil record-- old parts modified for different functions. It makes sense if you have to use old parts, as does natural selection, but not if you can build from scratch every single needed part. Why use parts that function only marginally, when you could use brand new parts that work at 100%? It doesn't make sense.
quote:
Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.
Give me something to agree with you about.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 57 (16120)
08-27-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 6:49 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]
We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. [/QUOTE]
Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?
You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.
Not the same genes.
The same exact mutations.
I would love to hear the 'creationist interpretation' of that.
You can look here:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm
for example, and provide a creationist 'interpretation' of what you see.
Of course, there are locial interpretations, and illogical ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 4:00 AM derwood has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 57 (16121)
08-27-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 6:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.
Presumably the nature & distribution of fossils belong in that errant 1%, as well.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 6:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 57 (16124)
08-27-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
08-27-2002 8:45 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]I take issue with "common sense" and evidence for creation. Common sense would indicate there is no responsive greater intelligent being. Rather than common sense a creation hypothesis has to provide a testable hypothesis and then gather evidence to support it. Such a hypotheis is not forthcoming.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Let me start then with two steps that we could argue till the cows come home as to whether you or I or someone else for that matter has been able to marshal any common sense in the appearence of the ILLUSION due to creation/evolution talk that never seems to get to the origin for any source that may biologically when not also cosmologically exist. Formally we may sincerely differ as to the psychology we may marshall but this is not a case where a search warrent is warrented the two known steps will get the discussion to a station on earth that with the declaration or not you are as independent as I to proceed to correspond or not.
STEP1) Economic Justification on reality of global economy creating discipline of nanotechnology-- whatever surface, table, plane the work is created on and afforded to be done by a rouge nation or the best of the brightest the pits that were in Wright's landscape need to be engineered in from the start (even if you side with Fisher on the point there is more than a point when it comes to the budget and the two sides of the account ledger no matter the chemicals that may already be shelved on either side of Wallace's line). This is where the older generation of creation criticism has been but the work of ICR (etc)had actually changed this by inductions that may not be in common with evoltionists that are affording such programs as NEON where the very computer architeture may be in the future the fault for some even with this e-commerce predictable in adavance if the two sides saw the illusion for the cash it overdetermines but underspends.
Step2) There has been a "virulent" military complex attached to the non-thermal effects of EM in biology that positively inhibits but does not prevent even mere linguistic progress since it pays for the bills to do the expts etc which could be gain said if the creationist call for a better than Descartes of modern mechanical intutiion as the speication governor and change machine of society for it is not theortetically obvious that QM as is is correctly in a paradgim to find the result but a hypothesis can and will be proposed with the nominal defintions that also come out in this step. If energy can be got from speciation it COUld be by reformations FOR WHICH A SIZABLE TECHONOLOGICAL SECTOR WOULD have to be re-directed to the and cooridination with the biology changing of and this does give a specific hypothesis from within the internal form that Maxwell closed the curve on that Newton dynamized , Pascal doubled and Galelio pointed in a line that...You may not understand this but this is hypothetical and not philosophical but came to light on working in the context of differnces of opinions of creation and evolution for it will continue to be a problem even with the words about electro-polution as long as govenernments do not want to mitgate the potential cost associated thought I am writing this from this station and not any random country etc but should speciation be understood in a taxogenci manner such that gravity forced histogeny and e-m morphogeny can be ontogenically distiguishable even in one speices then we will have our cat and it will be in the bag. Roosevelt could not have plained otherwise even if he did not really know how to write about snakes.
Step3)Ecosystem Engineering-- I do not go into this yet it is a discpipline that will continue to be worked into the present sustainale paradigm as we explore the environs and reveal the harms that urbanization may have such that the most toxic side effects of out posted post it modernized post modern space age society may shunt to stations off the planent to better increase our ecological chance of getting the global economy back down to earth and not in the inflationary side pocket of the 8 ball. Mr. T has nothing on me.
The word "extreme" no longer became one for me when I watched on Brown grounds the TVshow slide sports down a slope that was only one day called FUN IN THE SUN (or Slope Day) at Cornell. Neither of which exist any more than Disyney World in France or MJ in Poland. Popularization continues to be argued against TRUTH and this does not always allow one to get out of transcendental thoughts that remain as long as one thinks of it in the creation evolution debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2002 8:45 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Matt
Inactive Junior Member


Message 12 of 57 (16836)
09-07-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Luis_H
08-20-2002 2:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Luis_H:
Darwin's theory has helped us so much. Especially in medical science. I don't where we, as a human race, would be if the theory of natural selection hadn't been applied to medicine.

Please explain to all of us where "evolution" has anything to do with medical science. I would really like to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Luis_H, posted 08-20-2002 2:28 AM Luis_H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 4:59 AM Matt has replied
 Message 24 by derwood, posted 09-09-2002 11:42 AM Matt has not replied

Matt
Inactive Junior Member


Message 13 of 57 (16838)
09-07-2002 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
08-27-2002 1:06 PM


Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?
You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.
Are you sure they are mutations? How can you tell if you didn't originally see those strands as they were begotten? Perhaps they were originally unmutated strands that were later subjected to excessive ultraviolet radiation and were both likely changed in similar manners. I can do the same thing with 2 identically programmed EEPROM chips and come out with similar observed (mutated) data by subjecting them to ultraviolet light for a set period of time. Similar strands are obviously a repetative design coming from a single style/process used at some type of inception. Repetative mutation in no way proves common ancestry one bit for holding a water-tight argument. It can however back the ID claim that they were originally designed similar at the beginning of inception. So, as you see, I now have more than 1 solution to your problem.
There are MANY observed phenomena that can't be explained rationally.
Obviously you "believe" you know the answer for the evolutionist's. So let's hear it!
I am a computer scientist. So your answer has to be PROVEN and unbiased. If you can't answer then you have no claims for your argument. So why bring up this topic in the first place if it can't be proven??
[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 08-27-2002 1:06 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 09-09-2002 11:37 AM Matt has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 57 (16841)
09-07-2002 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Matt
09-07-2002 3:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Matt:
quote:
Originally posted by Luis_H:
Darwin's theory has helped us so much. Especially in medical science. I don't where we, as a human race, would be if the theory of natural selection hadn't been applied to medicine.

Please explain to all of us where "evolution" has anything to do with medical science. I would really like to know.

I just couldn't resist. Let me give you something to research a bit while I'm traveling for the next week or so:
1. Eukaryote mitochondria contains ribosomes that are totally different from ribosomes in the rest of the cell.
2. Mitochondrial ribosmes show sequence homology with bacterial ribosomes (specifically, Rikettsia).
3. Evolutionary theory explaining this fact, specifically serial endosymbiosis theory (SET), states that around a billion or so years ago mitochondria were free-living bacteria that were internalized by other prokaryotes.
If mitochondrial ribosomes are in fact related to bacterial ribosomes, this has significant implications for medicine, as antibacterial drugs that operate by inhibiting bacterial ribosomes would effect normal cellular ribosomes the same way.
As an example:
quote:
Chloramphenicol blocks protein synthesis by bacterial and most mitochondrial ribosomes, but not by cytoplasmic ribosomes. Conversely, cyclohexamide inhibits protein synthesis by eukaryotic cytolasmic ribosomes but does not affect protein synthesis by mitochondrial ribosomes or bacterial ribosomes. (Lodish, Molecular Cell Biology, 3d ed.)
Using evolutionary theory, researchers can design drugs that target bacteria, but that don't ALSO target our own mitochondria. Without knowledge of evolution, a drug that kills bacteria could as easily kill us by interfering with our own mitochondria!
See you in a week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 3:18 AM Matt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Matt, posted 09-08-2002 2:18 AM Quetzal has not replied

Matt
Inactive Junior Member


Message 15 of 57 (16885)
09-08-2002 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Quetzal
09-07-2002 4:59 AM


Hugh?
Mutation has nothing to do with variation!! Can you prove that it does?
[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 4:59 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by compmage, posted 09-08-2002 6:20 AM Matt has not replied
 Message 25 by derwood, posted 09-09-2002 11:43 AM Matt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024