 |
No, you say the scientists were wrong - science was right. You know, like how you theists say man's interpretation of x, y, z was wrong, but the Bible was right. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
And why did you put science in quotes? It's a real thing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Please Don't lie and make up definitions to suit your own argument.
be·lief (bĭ-lēf')
n.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons
faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A GOD)
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.
Niether of these definitions are excusively related to a belief or faith in a deity/ God.
So credo does have FAITH in his BELIEFS.
Science is science, but that Hoax Evolutions is not science. Don't get it twistedQuote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Yes jillianleab : don't get it twisted : that is sassyT's trademark !Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
:D
·
I'm not sure where in my post I said science isn't science... I said scientists aren't science... and they aren't. They're people. People subject to mistakes. Science on the other hand is always right.
I twist nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
At Ten, Dark Energy "Most Profound Problem" in Physics
Can You Hear Me Now? Primitive Single-Celled Microbe Expert In Cellular Communication Networks
Neither of these links, contrary to what Credo thinks, is religious based, in fact they are "science based."
These are examples of science, real science objectively observing fact. What is NOT science is trying to fit the complexity of a single cell into the theory of evolution. That is not scientific though many scientists and evolutionists believe it is the best theory out there.
I give you these examples because there is the whole the Bible can be wrong because it is written by humans and humans can be wrong line of thinking . Well the same can be said for "scientific" theories, but anyone that questions the darwin party line or the global warming party line is viewed as "unscientific."
Wrong. Evolution has no 'direction.'Quote:
inthebox> In evolution things go from simple to complex, right?
Because sociological studies (with the help of evolutionary theories) has shown that the "golden rule" is the 'good' aids in keeping groups together while "to the victor..." is the 'evil' that tears them apart. Duh.Quote:
inthebox> How come all the God deniers say all people really need to live by is the "golden rule?" How is that any more true than "to the victor belongs the spoils."
That irrefutable evidence has been presented to me. I fully accept the scientific theory, as opposed to a layman's theory or thesis. For some reason you do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between the connotations on the word 'theory' (I suspect it's because the Discovery Institute likes to harp on the word for confusion's sake).Quote:
Sassy
What I have a problem with is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact the evoltion is a theory and you claim it is a fact of reality and yet you can not provide irrefutable evidence to qualify it a fact. I know you are zelous believer, but please be rational for a moment and admit Evolution is a theory.
And I am not a zealot. That would imply, as it is with religious uses, that I accept without evidence. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
"[O]ne of the things I like about biology is that you have evolution on your side." --materials chemist Angela Belcher, who programmed viruses to incorporate and grow a number of different inorganic materials and is in the process of trying to train them to find peptides to identify cancer cells. (Just one example to prove you're science education is lacking. More to follow when I can get a stable connection... )Quote:
Scientists have NEVER observed a single mutation in the laboraatory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through random mutation can not possibly add new information as the theory demands. Copying errors have only been seen to lose or corrupt imformation therefore mutations cannot add information to generate possitive change to an organism. So this theory depends on an unobserved unproven assuption that random mutations over time result in beneficial improvements.
Quote:
How could the complete eye have been produced by the evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages??
Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
So how did the eye come to be? How do explain that problem with the theory?
This ID chestnut has been shown to be based on faulty assumptions for a long time. To put it simply, the eye evolved first from simple light-detecting cells. It also evolved independently several times. If I looked up a link would you bother to actually read it to try and learn the scientific explanation behind it?
Quote:
intelligent design by a supernatural intelligent being is simple and pure common sense. The same commons sense that tells you the faces on MT rushmore did not just appear on that mountain by chance.
Seems we also have differing views on what common sense is. I base mine on practical experience, and there have not been any supernatural events that lead me to anything like a 'common sense' idea of any supernatural entities. In fact, by definition, a supernatural event would be counter to common sense. William Paley just made assumptions based on his religious belief.
achampio21 - your post #363... Bravo
You'd get a greenie if I could give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
FYI the golden rule came from religious teaching, from the Bible. Jesus's words to be exact.
Matthew 7:12
12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Rubbish : the Golden Rule was already mentioned in many other religions and philosophies, years prior to the first letter of the Bible having been written down.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 31a - thirteenth century B.C.
Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
- Analects 15:23 - sixth century B.C.
Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
- Udana-Varga 5:18 - fifth century B.C.
Jainism: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self, and should therefore refrain inflicting on others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves"
- fifth century B.C.
Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.
- Dadistan-I-dinik 94:5 - fifth century B.C.
Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
- T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien - fourth century B.C.
Plato: May I do to others as I would that they should do to me.
- fourth century B.C.
Brahmanism (Hinduism): This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
- Mahabharata 5:1517 - third century B.C.
Hillel: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man."
- first century B.C.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about...
:rolleyes:
·
[QUOTE]what irrefutable evidence?? Where is the irrefutable fossil evidence? Tell me in what lab a scientists has observed a random mutation that has added new information? It has NEVER happened. Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits for example an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body, but none of these things qualify as "new traits".Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
So the bottom line is you believe in a theory that relies on an uproven assuption that mutation create new information. This has never been observed but you believe it anyway, which demonstrates your FAITH in the theory.
A Zealot does not have to imply religion at all. I call you a zealot because you CLAIM something is fact despite your inability to give irrefutable evidence. You have a lot faith in these uproven theories that you are willing to ignore the scientific problems that make Macro evolution virtually impossible.Quote:
And I am not a zealot. That would imply, as it is with religious uses, that I accept without evidence. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
what evidence of this do you have? You can't just make empty claims like that. Is there any evidence that an eye evolved from a light detecting cell or is this an assuption made by Darwanists?Quote:
This ID chestnut has been shown to be based on faulty assumptions for a long time.B] It also evolved independently several times.[/B] ??? If I looked up a link would you bother to actually read it to try and learn the scientific explanation behind it?Quote:
To put it simply, the eye evolved first from simple light-detecting cells.[
this is not just an "ID chestnut" this is a huge problem with the theory that Darwin himself worried about
The Origin of Species(1859):
Darwin "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
I find it absurd too yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory. Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things.
So "practical experience" and common sense should tell you that anything that appears to have a design and/or purpose, must have an originater.Quote:
Seems we also have differing views on what common sense is. I base mine on practical experience, and there have not been any supernatural events that lead me to anything like a 'common sense' idea of any supernatural entities. In fact, by definition, a supernatural event would be counter to common sense. William Paley just made assumptions based on his religious belief.
William Paley's analogy was just basic common sense, how can you come across a complex device like a watch and conclude that it appeared from no where by "chance" and evolved over time?? That makes no sense. Now man is even waaaay more complex that a watch, so how can you assume he came about by chance? Make no sense.
Its just common sense, that all you need. ;)
Duh... :rolleyes: that's what I said, it is from religious teachings. Including the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Don't get I ahead of yourself please..
You must have a lot of cardboard between your ears...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
But congrats : you managed that line without any spelling mistake...
:D
·
:( :( :( I am a terrible speller :( it breaks my heartQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
:rolleyes:
Sociology with the help of evolutionary studies - conflict of interest there, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Lets us assume that evolution is true and do studies with that preconception.
Good scientific method and argument there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Programmed! This is science - using intelligence
Ms Belcher is using her intelligence to manipulate conditions for a scientific purpose.
Great example.
Did Ms Belcher wait for viral mutations and reproductive benefit to manufacture these peptides?
Who programmed the genetic code? Prove it.
Link it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Here you go, inthebox:
CB301: Eye complexity
Check out the rest of the site while you're there...
How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
This is the article that it linked to
It is a proposed schematic for the development of the eye. Using a mathematical model it took 1829 1% steps over a third of a million years.
The question is, each of these 1829 steps, of which there is no proof, would have had to occur as the result of a "beneficial" mutation that gives a functional reproductive advantage.
Where are and when did each of these mutations occur? Is it in the fossil record?
What was the reproductive advantage of having 1/ 1829 or 900/ 1829 or 1800/ 1829 of an eye? Was each step in the eye functional?
What of the sequence of development?
Rods and cones are useless without an optic nerve which in turn is useless without an occipital cortex. Those are just the basics. How can one of these parts without the others being there function as an "eye?"
This is like saying I built an engine first I had a piston, then a rod, then a crankshaft, then intake valves, then exhaust valves, thena fuel line etc... None of the parts can function on its own as an engine, and you expect 1829 indivvidual steps, according to the model proposed, to come up with an eye?
This is not science but daydreaming.
Exercise Your Wonder: October 1, 2004
If you really want to wonder about the complexity of the eye read more...
Quote:
For scientists now, given our current understanding of how life really works, more proof than the mere existence of various eyes being present in various organisms should be required to verify a theory of origin. Every aspect of eye function and vision: the genetic coding responsible for the macromolecular structures contained within each necessary part : the physiological interdependence of each component: a detailed explanation for how the electrophysiology behind “vision” came into being: and the underlying mechanisms within the brain that allow it to take these nerve impulses and convert them into what we call “sight”: must be presented in a step by step fashion in order for macroevolution to be considered as an acceptable mechanism behind origin.
... when comparing the eye to the camera is to say that “the camera is like an eye”. Having said this, it is evident to most readers that the camera did not come into being but by the work of human intelligence i.e. it was the work of intelligent design.
Is it therefore such a leap of faith to consider that since empirically we know that the camera was intelligently designed and is very similar to the human eye, that it is plausible that the eye was intelligently designed as well? Which makes more rational sense to the mind: What macroevolution proposes? Or what intelligent design proposes?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:35 AM. |