You are completely retarded if you think scientists think that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth like it was some fucking bible. If that were the case, no scientist would study evolution.
EXPELLED -How Schools Are Hiding Real Science.
- Thread starter Rusky
- Start date
- Status
You are completely retarded if you think scientists think that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth like it was some fucking bible. If that were the case, no scientist would study evolution.
::gasp:: you mean scientists only study things we have questions about?
TO HELL WITH THEE BLASPHEMER
Oh yes. And I nearly forgot. @Rusky: You can call me a zombie all you want. My avatar isn't a picture of me dumbass.
Creationism/Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in a science class simply because it's not science. Philosophy or religious studies? Yes. But not in a biology class.
Come on pat. Everyone knows that God keeps plenty of DNAs in his back pocket.
Oh, where did he get it from? Um...his God?:anon.sml:
interwebmarketr said:
Man that would sure make Biology class a hell of a lot easier though. The answer to every quesiton: God.
you're all missing the point which, as marketers, you should be paying attention to:
this is a damn fine piece of propaganda.
instead of arguing over who's right or wrong on this issue (of which either theory has no practical application) you should be focused on the fact that ben stein and his production crew pumped out a brilliant marketing piece for intelligent design.
right from the beginning -- ben was established as a perceived expert with his introduction. even though he was actually talking to paid extras, it was made to seem as if he was presenting to a large audience that actually cared about what he was talking about. perfect execution.
the hypnotic repetition of values people agree are always good -- freedom in this case -- would lead an otherwise uninformed viewer to believe that this fight, this battle, this war on the freedom to discuss intelligent design was implicitly bad. masterfully done.
constant fascism and war references, WW2 footage, and other uses of dramatic elements kept the argument at the emotional level instead of logical. well played.
if i had cared to actually watch the entire advertisement, i'm sure many more exampes could be provided that show little persuasive tricks of the trade that can be applied yourself while promoting any other product, service, or idea.
bitching about who's right or who's wrong has zero impact on your bottom line.
how, and why, these arguments are presented are better topics for debate.
this is a damn fine piece of propaganda.
instead of arguing over who's right or wrong on this issue (of which either theory has no practical application) you should be focused on the fact that ben stein and his production crew pumped out a brilliant marketing piece for intelligent design.
right from the beginning -- ben was established as a perceived expert with his introduction. even though he was actually talking to paid extras, it was made to seem as if he was presenting to a large audience that actually cared about what he was talking about. perfect execution.
the hypnotic repetition of values people agree are always good -- freedom in this case -- would lead an otherwise uninformed viewer to believe that this fight, this battle, this war on the freedom to discuss intelligent design was implicitly bad. masterfully done.
constant fascism and war references, WW2 footage, and other uses of dramatic elements kept the argument at the emotional level instead of logical. well played.
if i had cared to actually watch the entire advertisement, i'm sure many more exampes could be provided that show little persuasive tricks of the trade that can be applied yourself while promoting any other product, service, or idea.
bitching about who's right or who's wrong has zero impact on your bottom line.
how, and why, these arguments are presented are better topics for debate.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Darwinism is NOT evolutionary theory, it's merely a subset of it.
Now, as it stands, Evolutionary theory is getting a nice big shot in the arm lately, showing that hey, it actually IS possible for life to just happen, and we're doing it in labs.
Retard's Cliff note: Scientists are literally taking slabs of chemicals, smooshing them together, zapping them with some electricity, and watching it turn into simple organisms.
The chemical compounds that do this occur naturally, both here on Terra, and have repeatedly been found in samples of material that a small, but significant, number of probes that have been sent out.
Furthermore, evolution into different species or sub species can be seen when you introduce new genes, either by interbreeding, or forced takeover (like what virii do).
Here's the smooshing: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html
And here's an old one where they said they'd smoosh chemicals together to make life: Synthesizing life : Abstract : Nature
Nevele: Good point.
We should probably pay attention not to the message, but to the medium.
After all, getting back to the reductio ad nazism, WW2 propaganda was made in an exceedingly similar way, on both sides, and look at the results of that.
Now, as it stands, Evolutionary theory is getting a nice big shot in the arm lately, showing that hey, it actually IS possible for life to just happen, and we're doing it in labs.
Retard's Cliff note: Scientists are literally taking slabs of chemicals, smooshing them together, zapping them with some electricity, and watching it turn into simple organisms.
The chemical compounds that do this occur naturally, both here on Terra, and have repeatedly been found in samples of material that a small, but significant, number of probes that have been sent out.
Furthermore, evolution into different species or sub species can be seen when you introduce new genes, either by interbreeding, or forced takeover (like what virii do).
Here's the smooshing: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html
And here's an old one where they said they'd smoosh chemicals together to make life: Synthesizing life : Abstract : Nature
Nevele: Good point.
We should probably pay attention not to the message, but to the medium.
After all, getting back to the reductio ad nazism, WW2 propaganda was made in an exceedingly similar way, on both sides, and look at the results of that.
The smart ones I hope looked at my DNA post, maybe thats why I didnt hear anything from them. All the others must not have. I really dont know how else to explain this to you.
Once again why are we bringing up religion. Its always the same thing with everyone. This isnt a theory. Post I made is a fact. Show me if there is anything wrong with it.
You see Darwin didnt know about DNA. He thought over time species change, mutate, evolve what ever. But you see the way our body, organs, hands, arms, is encoded in our DNA. So in order for us to change our DNA has to altered or mutated(or reprogrammed). Just like this website has code, and you can control the way a site looks by changing the code. Now with this in mind go back and look at my DNA post. This is my last Try, I hope.
DNA
1 - DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.
2- When we were in our mother's womb we started off as a single cell not even weighing an ounce at conception. Eventually we developed arms, hands, legs, feet and organs such as brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, until we had a complete body.
3-Where did the material come from for that one cell to multiply into billions of more cells of equal size and eventually making a body weighing several pounds from something that didn't even weigh an ounce in the beginning. The material came from our mother's food.
4-Even after all our organs are formed the cells that make up our organs are continually dying and need to be replaced. Again, the material to make more cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from food. (I think at least 5 proteins were needed if you believe we came from soup, were did they from)
5-Mutations are accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code caused by radiation and other environmental forces. Most biological variations, however, are not from mutations but from new combinations of already existing genes.
6-Because they are accidents in the genetic code, almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole.
7-Evolutionists hope that with enough time and with enough mutations new genes for entirely new traits will be produced leading to the evolution of new biological kinds. There is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on chemistry by accidental changes in the sequence of the letters.
8-At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing genes or traits, but not new genes or new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!
9- No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA to direct the formation of more DNA.
10-The mathematical odds of even the simplest DNA molecule coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in an entire encyclopedia by randomly hitting the keys on a computer keyboard or typewriter.
Most important.
Science cannot prove the existence of God but science cannot prove that we are here by chance either. However, the scientific evidence does show that it is not rational or logical to believe that DNA, life, and the universe came about by chance. Belief in chance or evolution is blind faith.
Once again why are we bringing up religion. Its always the same thing with everyone. This isnt a theory. Post I made is a fact. Show me if there is anything wrong with it.
You see Darwin didnt know about DNA. He thought over time species change, mutate, evolve what ever. But you see the way our body, organs, hands, arms, is encoded in our DNA. So in order for us to change our DNA has to altered or mutated(or reprogrammed). Just like this website has code, and you can control the way a site looks by changing the code. Now with this in mind go back and look at my DNA post. This is my last Try, I hope.
DNA
1 - DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.
2- When we were in our mother's womb we started off as a single cell not even weighing an ounce at conception. Eventually we developed arms, hands, legs, feet and organs such as brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, until we had a complete body.
3-Where did the material come from for that one cell to multiply into billions of more cells of equal size and eventually making a body weighing several pounds from something that didn't even weigh an ounce in the beginning. The material came from our mother's food.
4-Even after all our organs are formed the cells that make up our organs are continually dying and need to be replaced. Again, the material to make more cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from food. (I think at least 5 proteins were needed if you believe we came from soup, were did they from)
5-Mutations are accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code caused by radiation and other environmental forces. Most biological variations, however, are not from mutations but from new combinations of already existing genes.
6-Because they are accidents in the genetic code, almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole.
7-Evolutionists hope that with enough time and with enough mutations new genes for entirely new traits will be produced leading to the evolution of new biological kinds. There is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on chemistry by accidental changes in the sequence of the letters.
8-At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing genes or traits, but not new genes or new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!
9- No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA to direct the formation of more DNA.
10-The mathematical odds of even the simplest DNA molecule coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in an entire encyclopedia by randomly hitting the keys on a computer keyboard or typewriter.
Most important.
Science cannot prove the existence of God but science cannot prove that we are here by chance either. However, the scientific evidence does show that it is not rational or logical to believe that DNA, life, and the universe came about by chance. Belief in chance or evolution is blind faith.
Louis Pasteur - You can see his name on your milk.
He made this discovery.
Spontaneous generation
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances; according to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.
In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."[8]
In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted. Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.
Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.[9]
The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, every living thing from an egg).
In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.
But then Darwin Comes in to Cover his Ass.
Darwin and Pasteur
By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists discovered the theory of Biogenesis by demonstrating that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living matter. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[10]Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] (What - is this not faith)
He made this discovery.
Spontaneous generation
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances; according to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.
In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."[8]
In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted. Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.
Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.[9]
The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, every living thing from an egg).
In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.
But then Darwin Comes in to Cover his Ass.
Darwin and Pasteur
By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists discovered the theory of Biogenesis by demonstrating that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living matter. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[10]Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[11] (What - is this not faith)
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Methinks this is the sort of evolutionary process Rusky is in need of:
#1: So what? That proves MY point
#2: So what? How about non mammilian life forms? How about multi-cellular parasites? Matter isn't created. It's merely transferred. ZOMG, it's that same process that allows us to lose weight in a sauna
#3: Isn't this the same point as #2?
#5 and #6 are moot, because it doesn't affect an entire populace. Genetically inferior individuals of a species do not get (as many) breeding opportunities, and do not pass on their genes in a statistically significant way. Therefore there is no cumulative effect or affects.
#7 doesn't even make sense. I think if you gave me the letters from a romance book, I could get 10,000 monkeys to use them to make a few highschool prac books.
#8 Wrong, this guy gre fucking horns all over his body, thanks to the virus that causes warts
#9: I refuted #9 with my last post pretty solidly! We're playing god now, bitch.
And before you say "Oh, but that was scientists doing it in a lab"
Genetic building blocks may have formed in space - astrobiology - 13 June 2008 - New Scientist Space
#10: And those odds, whilst small, are bound to eventually happen thanks to billions of planets that happen to have similar atmoshperhic and chemical make ups.
Sorry, but how many billions of planets exist?
1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere.
#1: So what? That proves MY point
#2: So what? How about non mammilian life forms? How about multi-cellular parasites? Matter isn't created. It's merely transferred. ZOMG, it's that same process that allows us to lose weight in a sauna
#3: Isn't this the same point as #2?
#5 and #6 are moot, because it doesn't affect an entire populace. Genetically inferior individuals of a species do not get (as many) breeding opportunities, and do not pass on their genes in a statistically significant way. Therefore there is no cumulative effect or affects.
#7 doesn't even make sense. I think if you gave me the letters from a romance book, I could get 10,000 monkeys to use them to make a few highschool prac books.
#8 Wrong, this guy gre fucking horns all over his body, thanks to the virus that causes warts
#9: I refuted #9 with my last post pretty solidly! We're playing god now, bitch.
And before you say "Oh, but that was scientists doing it in a lab"
Genetic building blocks may have formed in space - astrobiology - 13 June 2008 - New Scientist Space
#10: And those odds, whilst small, are bound to eventually happen thanks to billions of planets that happen to have similar atmoshperhic and chemical make ups.
Sorry, but how many billions of planets exist?
1,000,000,000:1 odds vs 1,000,000,000 star systems sounds very much like 1:1 odds of this actually happening somewhere.
You still cant show me anything wrong with my DNA post.
I didnt try to set you up, Not sure why you put this here. But I already talked about this.
Your quote.
#9: I refuted #9 with my last post pretty solidly! We're playing god now, bitch.
And before you say "Oh, but that was scientists doing it in a lab"
Genetic building blocks may have formed in space - astrobiology - 13 June 2008 - New Scientist Space
This is exactly what I was talking about. Francis Crick first came up with this idea. You're missing the point of my thread. Its got nothing to do with religion. Just Darwinisms Evolustion theory and how every other idea gets shut down or black listed.
I didnt try to set you up, Not sure why you put this here. But I already talked about this.
Your quote.
#9: I refuted #9 with my last post pretty solidly! We're playing god now, bitch.
And before you say "Oh, but that was scientists doing it in a lab"
Genetic building blocks may have formed in space - astrobiology - 13 June 2008 - New Scientist Space
This is exactly what I was talking about. Francis Crick first came up with this idea. You're missing the point of my thread. Its got nothing to do with religion. Just Darwinisms Evolustion theory and how every other idea gets shut down or black listed.
Your other article HarveyJ
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I liked this quote.
"In any case, there are many hurdles to overcome before Dr. Venter’s vision of “life by design” is realized. "
"synthetic biology, which involves the design of organisms to perform particular tasks, such as making biofuels. Synthetic biologists envision being able one day to design an organism on a computer(design on a computer)"
How is this a good article for evolution. All I see is design.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I liked this quote.
"In any case, there are many hurdles to overcome before Dr. Venter’s vision of “life by design” is realized. "
"synthetic biology, which involves the design of organisms to perform particular tasks, such as making biofuels. Synthetic biologists envision being able one day to design an organism on a computer(design on a computer)"
How is this a good article for evolution. All I see is design.
Humans can be designers and maybe something else in space. But there is one type of designer that's not allowed. Like I said to much Political, Social, and Conscious implications.
I don't see how you're still comparing evolution to intelligent design.
For something to be classified as a theory, it has to at least explain observable facts and predict future events.
Englighten us with one event that can be predicted by intelligent design.
Until then, GTFO
For something to be classified as a theory, it has to at least explain observable facts and predict future events.
Englighten us with one event that can be predicted by intelligent design.
Until then, GTFO
Dude you're kidding me right.
Just tell you self this, simple cell simple cell simple cell. Then poof you got a simple cell.
Just tell you self this, simple cell simple cell simple cell. Then poof you got a simple cell.
So because we dont understand 100% of where life came from, god automatically did it? Remember how we didn't always know where lighting came from? Remember how we didn't know that the Earth was round? Remember how we thought the sun revolved around the earth?
Boy, dont those people look silly now! Do you REALLY think this cycle of discovery is going to end? I have confidence science will Create life in a laboratory within the next decade.
What will you say then?
Want to see a good documentary that isn't full of creationist propoganda? Go see Religioulous, great movie.
- Status