Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

See, this is the problem. If you don't think any of the theories hold water, then you don't just pick the least bad one, which is what most evolution believers have done. You say none of them fit. But, you have to believe in something, so you pick evolution and then avoid looking at the problems with it.

Why are people so fanatical in resisting any questioning of evolution?

If/when there is solid scientific proof (and not just a group of scientists who are skeptical of the notion, but hard evidence saying random mutations, increased fitness, and predatory pressures don't dictate which traits stay or go in animals), science will adapt and change. It's been doing it for many millennia and will continue to do so.

Science is more than willing to look at its short comings, its fallacies, and its flat out wrongness. How do you still stand behind a text that has gaping holes in it? If science is willing to change, why can't religion? Why is it science that is always wrong and all these religious beliefs on creation (which evolution doesn't even touch) and/or intelligent design right? When you start looking at the bible with a logical and scientific eye, I'll start looking at evolution with with a religious bent and still come up with the same answer....stuff slowly changes over time....but will you come to the same conclusions?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

No, Newtonian physics are true because they've been tested and proven valid. Evolution is likewise true because it also has been tested numerous times and proven correct.

Not believing in evolution as a biological process is as idiotic as not believing in newtonian physics.

I posited an analogy, not a causal relationship.

So say you. Many reputable scientists disagree with you.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Just one huge hole in it is how various bodily functions came into being when they are massively intricate and would require a huge number of things to all evolve in very complex ways at the same time. Try reading up on just this one gaping hole in evolution. It'll knock your socks off if your mind isn't entirely closed.

I do find the discussion fascinating and although the implications of a national movement to a belief based on creationism would not have immediate effects...I could see the long term effects of damage to our medical physician and research labor pool.

I haven't seen much in the way of hard facts that support creationism...but I have seen the above logic. So to paraphraze it goes something like this...the human body is way to complex to have developed naturally and must have been directly created by an omnipotent being.

The trick is that we look at it with today's snapshot...when the human body has been developing for 5 billion years. If an outsider with our intelligence but not our knowledge...teleported here and studied Microsoft they'd be amazed. The company has hundreds of thousands of employees each highly specialized and managed which integrate together to create and internationally sell software for billions of dollars a year. What happened is that it developed one employee at a time...and all within our lifetime. I don't think something so massively sophisticated and complex as MSFT was directly created by God...but that's me.

Life, which evolved from micro organizations yet mentored by God, is a pretty amazing thing.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Frankly, Darwin was a lot more openminded and honest about this than people are now:

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.”

“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!”

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So say you. Many reputable scientists disagree with you.

Who? I just perused the articles for in your link and read the against that responds.

I want to know who the "reputable" is cause it sounds niether reputable nor logical.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Who? I just perused the articles for in your link and read the against that responds.

I want to know who the "reputable" is cause it sounds niether reputable nor logical.

Then you didn't read my link. My link was to a page with a vast list of scientists who question evolution. Not sure what you are looking at.

Try this, and click on the list button in the middle of the page:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Are we back to evolution vs intelligent design?

In science you have 1. scientific law 2. hypothesis 3. Theory
So where and how does ID fit in? 1. gods law 2. hypothesis? 3. Theory of everything (Intelligent Design)

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Finally Independent Federal Reserve BANK comes out with the list of welfare recipients.
So looks like citi was about to go bankrupt followed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fed-I...7.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve revealed details Wednesday of trillions of dollars in emergency aid it provided to U.S. and foreign banks during the financial crisis.

New documents show that the most loan and other aid for U.S. institutions over time went to Citigroup ($2.2 trillion), followed by Merrill Lynch ($2.1 trillion), Morgan Stanley ($2 trillion), Bank of America ($1.1 trillion), Bear Stearns ($960 billion), Goldman Sachs ($620 billion), JPMorgan Chase ($260 billion) and Wells Fargo ($150 billion). Many of the individual loans they took were worth billions and had short durations but were paid back and renewed many times.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob, if I show you some religious scholars who say that christianity is bunk, will you stop believing?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob, if I show you some religious scholars who say that christianity is bunk, will you stop believing?

If I show you some nonreligious scholars who say that christianity is true, will you start believing?

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

If I show you some nonreligious scholars who say that christianity is true, will you start believing?

Sorry, I need experts that don't believe to tell me it's true.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The planet is still round, right?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

There are substantial blocks of scientists out there that question evolution to varying degrees. An obvious example:
http://http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
But, hey, no reason to listen to many hundreds of scientists.

Oh dear. That list is actually... well. For a start look at how many of their fields actually deal with biology. And there are a lot more problems with it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Then you didn't read my link. My link was to a page with a vast list of scientists who question evolution. Not sure what you are looking at.

Try this, and click on the list button in the middle of the page:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Where's there alternative scientific theory? Poking holes in a theory is easy. We already know there are gaps, that's why it's a theory, DUH.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Hello dishonest quote mine. LYING FOR JESUS!

Frankly, Darwin was a lot more openminded and honest about this than people are now:

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Ya and then he went on to describe why in his time, some 150 years ago, the fossil record was incomplete. It's still incomplete, it will always be incomplete. But the amount of transitional fossils known today is very large. There's also another quote where Darwin questioned how could the eye evolve and that is also used in the same way, except they skip the part after where he gives a possible answer and that every stage of it has been discovered in animals living today.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.”

The actual place this is from, you'll notice that the second part does not even exist.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109

“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!”

This is a quote by Elizabeth Hope that has been countered by Darwin's own family. AND EVEN IF Darwin did for some reason say he was wrong on his deathbed, that does nothing to diminish the discoveries since then that have only shown his basic idea to be correct.

This is very indicative of a religious mindset where everything takes authority from the original source. If that source is wrong then any that follows is wrong. Well except when they look at their own text.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So say you. Many reputable scientists disagree with you.

No, they don't. Reputable and "not believing in evolution" do not go hand in hand in science. Just because you say they are reputable does not make it so (unless the reputation is a poor one).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Where's there alternative scientific theory? Poking holes in a theory is easy. We already know there are gaps, that's why it's a theory, DUH.

Theory is different than fact, a fact lost to most on this thread. Duh.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

No, they don't. Reputable and "not believing in evolution" do not go hand in hand in science. Just because you say they are reputable does not make it so (unless the reputation is a poor one).

Fine. You believe you are the arbiter of who is reputable and who isn't. Not much more to say there.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Theory is different than fact, a fact lost to most on this thread. Duh.

Scientific theory is different than the way you use theory, a fact not lost to most on this thread.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Theory is different than fact, a fact lost to most on this thread. Duh.

Do you want to be stupid or just ignorant? Theories explain facts. Facts mean nothing on there own.

Example
Fact - All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. (Since in very simple single and multi cellular organisms horizontal gene transfers happens quite easily leading to a large group of organisms that are the common ancestor.)

Theory - How those organisms came from a common ancestor. The mechanisms behind this process and ways to make predict results. It explains and connects facts in a meaningful way.

(Anything I missed or messed up there? For some reason something seems off to me about my description of a theory)

Oh well, either way, if you don't have something that can make testifiable predictions that match up with the facts, you don't have a theory.