EXPELLED -How Schools Are Hiding Real Science.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TYR897 - nice post but did you miss the part about no evidence of new traits. Only existing. Mutation or Different combination's of Code.
Hair to Feather would be a new trait.

As for the scientific community not protecting their baby Darwin. Well I guess when you're on the right side of the fence it doesn't apply.

As for the eye argument. How about the whole system. Like your heart, arteries, lungs, liver, stomach working in harmony. Take one away and what do you get.
 


Rusky said:
As for my organs argument.
Heres a quote from Dr Walt Browns book.
So In the beginning
"All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."
Click to expand...

Your arguments still goes like this: "x has not been proved, thefore the whole theory is false"

And whomever dr Walt Brown is, he's making the common mistake of assuming that he knows everything about the DNA and the then current circumstances during the evolution of the wing. No one knows everything about DNA so no one can say exacly what it can or can't do. We do, however, know a lot of things what it CAN do.

Rusky said:
Why does it have to be the natural way of this worlds understanding.

How about different dimensions. Were the laws of our world physics dont apply. You should check out string theory.
This is off topic but pretty interesting stuff. - String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buts thats getting into the Atomic level. Very small but a universe in it self. Lets just stick to simple cell.
Click to expand...

Everything that happens is natural. EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as supernatural. If ghosts/spirits/gods/etc exist, they can be explained with science.

The string theory is actually as natural as it gets. If more dimensions exist it's only natural. string (and super string) theory tries to unify all current laws into one theory of everything.
 
Rusky said:
TYR897 - nice post but did you miss the part about no evidence of new traits. Only existing. Mutation or Different combination's of Code.
Hair to Feather would be a new trait.

As for the scientific community not protecting their baby Darwin. Well I guess when you're on the right side of the fence it doesn't apply.

As for the eye argument. How about the whole system. Like your heart, arteries, lungs, liver, stomach working in harmony. Take one away and what do you get.
Click to expand...

Hair to Feather would be an example of an extreme trait taking millions of years. Evolution does not say that a hair will turn into a feather in one generation. It would take millions of years slowly turning that hair into a feather.

I really have to question your statement of studying genetics. For someone who has studied this, you have many misconceptions and failed logic.
 
Your misconception of my handle does not hide your misconceptions of genetics and basic scientific theory.
Nice try though.
 
turbolapp said:
Eli- I agree with what you say as a description for the study of evolution as it's based on a huge mound of evidence supporting theories. It's as close to fact as we can get. I don't think anyone is going to say anything is 100%. However, you make the plea that we have to keep an open mind with other ideas of thinking. Fine. Please show me the scientific evidence that supports ID and I will reevaluate it with an open mind. (This is towards Eli. I will read what he puts in front of me. Not the cockomamy crap that has been floating through the rest of this thread)
Click to expand...

lol yeah open dialogs about religion usually never turn out good :)
Luckily all my friends are of different religions and beliefs, in fact I'm the only one of my group that's a christian. So I'm used to conversations about it without turning them into giant arguments.

Asking for proof of ID is just begging for a world record post length hahaha. The science is simple though and it lies in the holes of evolution just like the science behind evolution lies in the holes of ID. Like I said neither can fully explain the broad picture. Darwin even recognized this in his book (yes I've read it and thought it was fantastic). However instead of making 6-7 posts to the max character limit I'll just give two easy examples which most of the science and theories are based around, the human body.

Proof of Evolution: The Human Tailbone.
spine.jpg


Proof of Intellegent Design: Sensory organs such as the Eye Ball
56122human-eye_%7E1574R-018848.jpg
human-eye_%7E1574R-018848.jpg


Try to explain why a human has an evolutionary appendage such as a tailbone without trying to explain how a sensory organ that either works or doesn't such as an eye ball can evolve out of adaptation or natural selection. It can't be done. When you really think about it, there's only one explanation. Evolution was created and/or had some intervening help. Darwin, who despite what Christians say about him was very intelligent, and recognized this. For those of you who didn't know Charles Darwin was in fact a Christian (exempt a falling out of faith after the death of his daughter). Read the chapter where he talks about obstacles to overcome and he discusses the feather.

Really I think the entire argument boils down to how long people think the world and the universe existed and how quickly they think evolution can work its magic on a species. Atheists believe it's been around for billions of years which geologists who study volcanoes strongly disagree with along with carbon daters who took a piece of fossil and dated it to 1.3m years old only to find out the fossil came from this:
p52_fossilHat.jpg

Then Christian fundamentalists believe that the earth is only about 4,000 years old which is just ridiculous. Even the bible says its quite a bit older than that and that everything wasn't created in only 7 earth days (the world rotated once before it existed? lol oh com'n christians).

Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "

Which scientifically makes a lot more sense when you consider how much humans have evolved in just the last 50 years alone.
91260tall.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice proof there eli... or wait a minute!

Absence of proof does not equal evidence of the alternative! Do you have a theory on how ID works without mentioning what has not yet been proven with the theory of evolution? How did this designer "intervene"? And who is this designer?

All this boils down to.... the myth(s) of creationism. Which is just that.. a myth.. created by humans.. for humans.
 
Bestcorp: The number I used in my example were wrong, plain and simple. They were there to illustrate a point as poorly as Rusky is illustrating his.
Using your statistics, versus the actual number of star systems that are currently known to exist, the chances actually get a lot better than 1:1. However, your numbers are jut as made up as my own (unless you've got a link to a peer reviewed article, which I sure as hell couldn't find)
And since modern man appeared, we've done our damn well best to eat or wear everything else that moves. That's a pretty weak argument. As it is, a number of species ARE adapting to changed environments, they just happen to be shorter lives species that have enough generations to be able to change at the current pace. Flying insects are the most obvious example, with many changing their once bright colours for muted greys, to camouflage in city environs.

Erect: I'm sticking with #3.
Considering we can bring dead people back to life with a zap of electricity using a defibrillator, it seems logical enough that organic compounds can be brought to life by a stroke of lightning on a pond... and then adapt to absorb more sunlight, absorb more water, and eventually start absorbing each other in more and more interesting ways.
Explanations #1 and #2 require the question of "Well, what created the creator?".

Rusky: You are either smoking something, stupid, or just willfully ignorant.
What part of human flesh turning into cutaneous horns due to a virus doesn't sound like a new trait? You know many people with horns? I sure as hell don't. That sounds pretty fucking new in the human genome to me.
Dede the "tree man", go look him up.

amateursurgeon said:
The Intelligent Design argument displayed in this thread illustrates why the rest of the world both laughs at, and is terrified by "middle America".

Don't get me wrong - we Brits are very good at being stupid and ignorant too, but there's something about the addition of religious fervour and mindless optimism to the mix that makes it truly disturbing.
Click to expand...
Than her Majesty that your official state religion worships the Queen as the representative of God ;) (chillax, a lot of my friends are CoE)
 
pat J said:
Nice proof there eli... or wait a minute!

Absence of proof does not equal evidence of the alternative! Do you have a theory on how ID works without mentioning what has not yet been proven with the theory of evolution? How did this designer "intervene"? And who is this designer?

All this boils down to.... the myth(s) of creationism. Which is just that.. a myth.. created by humans.. for humans.
Click to expand...
When you can prove what created the matter that created the matter. I'll prove what creator created the creator.

Until then you're out of your element donnie. kTHXBYE

pat J said:
Yeah, it was over the second none of you could back up your claims with acutal facts.
Click to expand...
"If there are any idiots in the room, will they please stand up" said the sarcastic teacher.

After a long silence, one freshman rose to his feet.

"Now then mister, why do you consider yourself an idiot?" inquired the teacher with a sneer.

"Well, actually I don't," said the student, "but I hate to see you standing up there all by yourself."
 
Deliguy said:
Try to explain why a human has an evolutionary appendage such as a tailbone without trying to explain how a sensory organ that either works or doesn't such as an eye ball can evolve out of adaptation or natural selection.
Click to expand...

A lot of the problem stems from assumptions like this. The eye doesn't either work, or not work, there are loads of possible stages in between, check this out:
How the Eye Evolved on Technorati


Deliguy said:
Atheists believe it's been around for billions of years which geologists who study volcanoes strongly disagree with along with carbon daters who took a piece of fossil and dated it to 1.3m years old only to find out the fossil came from this:
p52_fossilHat.jpg
Click to expand...

I really haven't got a clue where you dig some of this stuff up from
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deliguy said:
Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "

Which scientifically makes a lot more sense when you consider how much humans have evolved in just the last 50 years alone.
91260tall.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not evolution, it's better nutrition, they are two totally different things. This statement alone tells me that you can't understand evolutions correctly.
 
Deliguy said:
When you can prove what created the matter that created the matter. I'll prove what creator created the creator.
Click to expand...


That's the thing about evolution
It doesn't try to explain the creation of matter or anything else.
It just explains the variety of life we see today on the world, once the first self-replicating molecule existed.
Now , how the first self-replicating molecule came into existence is still a mystery. It's a field called abiogenesis which is still in it's very early existence.

I see most of you including Rusky keep talking about a single cell.
Well, evolution isnt trying to explain the creation of a cell.
It explains how species were created in over 4 billion years once that single cell was formed, and it's done a pretty good job.
 
lol @ the better nutrition explanation.
and that video is superb for people who think an eye is nothing more than a camera like lens.

This whole thread has gone way down hill.
 
HarveyJ said:
Bestcorp: The number I used in my example were wrong, plain and simple. They were there to illustrate a point as poorly as Rusky is illustrating his.
Using your statistics, versus the actual number of star systems that are currently known to exist, the chances actually get a lot better than 1:1. However, your numbers are jut as made up as my own (unless you've got a link to a peer reviewed article, which I sure as hell couldn't find)
And since modern man appeared, we've done our damn well best to eat or wear everything else that moves. That's a pretty weak argument. As it is, a number of species ARE adapting to changed environments, they just happen to be shorter lives species that have enough generations to be able to change at the current pace. Flying insects are the most obvious example, with many changing their once bright colours for muted greys, to camouflage in city environs.

Erect: I'm sticking with #3.
Considering we can bring dead people back to life with a zap of electricity using a defibrillator, it seems logical enough that organic compounds can be brought to life by a stroke of lightning on a pond... and then adapt to absorb more sunlight, absorb more water, and eventually start absorbing each other in more and more interesting ways.
Explanations #1 and #2 require the question of "Well, what created the creator?".

Rusky: You are either smoking something, stupid, or just willfully ignorant.
What part of human flesh turning into cutaneous horns due to a virus doesn't sound like a new trait? You know many people with horns? I sure as hell don't. That sounds pretty fucking new in the human genome to me.
Dede the "tree man", go look him up.


Than her Majesty that your official state religion worships the Queen as the representative of God ;) (chillax, a lot of my friends are CoE)
Click to expand...

HarveyJ this is just to easy. Heres you quote.

"Rusky: You are either smoking something, stupid, or just willfully ignorant.
What part of human flesh turning into cutaneous horns due to a virus doesn't sound like a new trait? "

Whats a cutaneous horn?
Keratins are the main constituent of structures that grow from the skin:
the α-keratins in the hair, horns, nails, claws and hooves of mammals.

This is from world journal. - World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Full text | Cutaneous horns: are these lesions as innocent as they seem to be?
Cutaneous horns, though grossly similar to horns in animals are histologically quite different from them. The animal horns are composed of superficial hyperkeratotic epidermis, dermis, and centrally positioned bone. No such axially positioned well-formed bone is observed in the gigantic human horns.

You know like our hair and nails are modifications of our skin.


Thats you.
OL-Donkey-Cart.jpg
 
Rusky said:
How about different dimensions. Were the laws of our world physics dont apply. You should check out string theory.
This is off topic but pretty interesting stuff. - String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buts thats getting into the Atomic level. Very small but a universe in it self. Lets just stick to simple cell.
Click to expand...

You can't have a go at evolution for being flawed and then post string theory.
 
I just said it was pretty interesting stuff.
This is on the atomic level. Very interested to see were this is goes in the future. I'm sure the atom(protons, electrons, neutrons) is not the end of it. Progress Baby.
Now that you mention it, isn't it funny how much money there getting to explore this even further. You think its pretty silly stuff, right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom