- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:34 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:34 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Because you're intellectually dishonest or are too stupid to realize you're being intellectually dishonest. Yall do not follow the scientific method.
See Rob, here you go. A simple statement about how LITTLE we really do know about how and why things exist today like they do and this is what you get. The biggest idiot on the board, who thinks he is some kind of elite intellect calls somebody stupid. Now, can you imagine how some in the scientific community are treated when they voice an opinion of dissent?
2
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:34 am to RobbBobb
quote:
My point is that in the closest proximity to us, and forming at the EXACT same time as us, NO LIFE whatsoever has been detected on the moon or Mars, which is beyond odd, if life can be so random
Jesus. quote:Your understanding of the word "random" is.. odd.
Know the meaning of words before using them. If life was truly random (or haphazard), then even if it was small grublike creatures that didn't require oxygen, you will still find "life" very near to us, in a haphazard, oddly configured form. But there is none. Not even traces
We could find another planet identical to earth. Same composition, climate, everything, and it is still likely that it will NOT have life.
Randomness is a totally different concept than probability.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:34 am to mattloc
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:36 am to Korkstand
quote:He doesn't seem to understand that something can have a 1 in a Zillion chance and another thing can have a 1 in 3 chance and BOTH would be "random"
Your understanding of the word "random" is.. odd.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:36 am to OMLandshark
quote:I was speaking of the most very basic origins of life, of biology. I fully believe organisms evolve and adaot over time through natural selection within the confines available in the plasticity of their dna. I want you, or anyone, to explain how the first organism evolved the cellular machinery to be alive, out of a random mix of amino acids and peptides, just straight up granting that those happened to be present all in one place, in the right properties, etc. How does the very first alive thing make the proteins, enzymes, cellular machinery, etc, that we know for a fact is required for life, when almost all of it is very complex and dependent in a very fundamental way on the presence of the rna and or DNA code and other cell machinery to be present to work. I'm not speaking of evolving organs or complex structures, or changing species, etc. I'm talking about the very most basic possible thing. Even if you had, say, a perfect soup of CGAT nucleobases at the right temp, how do those arrange themselves into something meaningful. Where did the information come from? How do you get from that to even the most basic thing we know is needed, RNA, when there is a host of cellular machinery required to produce RNA, and those bits of machinery themselves require the information stored in RNA to be produced? Please give me some answer other than an appeal to authority fallacy or, we just know it had to.
No, because in order for me to be correct in your mindset, I have to have every single generation of every single animal. That is impossible, and you know it, so you partake in intellectually dishonesty. That and every time we find what you would call a "missing link" all it does is create two new "missing links". One side is honest and the other does this anytime any evidence is given:
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:41 am
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:38 am to Lg
quote:
A simple statement about how LITTLE we really do know about how and why things exist today like they do and this is what you get.
Because whenever we carefully explain it to you, it goes in one ear and out the other. I can't tell you the number of idiots on this site that said some variance "why are there still monkeys" after it is carefully explained. So yes, the ridicule of you is justified.
quote:
The biggest idiot on the board, who thinks he is some kind of elite intellect calls somebody stupid.
imjustafatkid or bamarep haven't chimed in yet.
quote:
Now, can you imagine how some in the scientific community are treated when they voice an opinion of dissent?
Because they're not doing their jobs. They start with their end conclusion and denounce anything that doesn't meet it.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:39 am to RobbBobb
quote:If you consider a billion years "overnight", then yeah sure.
No matter what we evolved from, at some point we became male/female. That would had to have happened overnight.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:40 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
I'm a Creationist that finds evolution fascinating.
Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Do you believe that Dinosaurs existed?
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 11:42 am
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:41 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Do you think the earth is only 6,000 years old?
nope
quote:
Do you believe that Dinosaurs existed?
yep
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:42 am to Vecchio Cane
Then there are some problems with your creationist logic.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:42 am to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Then there are some problems with your creationist logic.
nope
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:43 am to narddogg81
quote:
I want you, or anyone, to explain how the first organism evolved the cellular machinery to be alive, out of a random mix of amino acids and peptides, just straight up granting that those happened to be present all in one place, in the right properties, etc.
I don't know, and that's the point I was making. I'm honest enough to say when I don't know something, but whenever your side doesn't know something, the foregone conclusion is "God did it!" Do you know how many things that we know now was initially explained as simply God? Like everything. You are using the logical fallacy known as "the God of the Gaps". It's intellectually dishonest and a major flaw of many scientists in the past, including men as significant as Newton. You and your kind are being dishonest.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:49 am to Kentucker
quote:its been refined by completely flipping the original premise that species originate gradually from one version of the animal to another, predicting thousands or millions of intermediate versions of the animal, until it has become a different animal. This was accepted as fact by the entire scientific world in complete confidence that it would be validated asmore examples we unearthed, except that didn't happen. So then they adanded basically the entire original premise and say it happens almost instantly, so fast that it can't be captured in the fossil record, through incalculable numbers of advantageous mutations (which are vanishingly rare), happening not just in one species but in every single one that we see explode in just a few million years. And that extremely unlikely series of events has happened not once but dozens of times we know about. I'm not sure why you don't see the problem with that. The math just didn't add up. Thinking about this kind of stuff is what science should be doing. The should be no sacred cows
Final response. Darwinism hasn’t been abandoned. It’s been refined.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:52 am to narddogg81
quote:You say "came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium" as if it doesn't make sense. Why do you think that a successful collection of mutations wouldn't result in an explosion of the population? They would. They have to. That is the definition of "successful" in the context of evolution. And given the extreme rarity of fossilization, it is not the slightest bit odd that we find fossils of the most successful species.
The fossil record did not show continual gradations smoothly blending between species, you see a distinct organism pop into existence in the evolutionary blink of an eye, then the next 'step' does the same thing, etc. That's why they came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, to explain why the fossils don't show what Darwin predicted. They rely now on the idea of advantageous mutations, despite knowing that like 99.99% of mutations are disastrously disadvantageous or outright fatal, and also ignoring the issues you get with higher order creatures and sexual reproduction, where if you change your DNA too much in one generation it can't be passed on because you suddenly can't breed. And yet over and over in the fossil record you see new, fully evolved, complex creatures explode into existence with no time for all this to happen by the only means available, random chance mutations.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:53 am to OMLandshark
quote:
imjustafatkid or bamarep haven't chimed in yet.
Should tell you where you rank in that category then.
quote:
They start with their end conclusion and denounce anything that doesn't meet it.
Well when you are talking about the theory of evolution, there wasn't anyone around to study it when it started, now was there? So you do have to work backward, correct? Talk about being intellectually dishonest.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:56 am to OMLandshark
quote:this is a very long winded way of saying "I take it on faith and because you don't you are a heretic to my religion".
I don't know, and that's the point I was making. I'm honest enough to say when I don't know something, but whenever your side doesn't know something, the foregone conclusion is "God did it!" Do you know how many things that we know now was initially explained as simply God? Like everything. You are using the logical fallacy known as "the God of the Gaps". It's intellectually dishonest and a major flaw of many scientists in the past, including men as significant as Newton. You and your kind are being dishonest.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 12:00 pm to Lg
quote:
A simple statement about how LITTLE we really do know about how and why things exist today like they do and this is what you get.
What do you expect when you tell people that you know the answer because you have a book written by primitive people that says so? Not only that, but you take it to the next level and tell anyone who doesn't fall in line that they're going to be tortured for eternity because they didn't follow your exact idea of a god.
If you ask me, you people get off lightly.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 12:11 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
What do you expect when you tell people that you know the answer because you have a book written by primitive people that says so? Not only that, but you take it to the next level and tell anyone who doesn't fall in line that they're going to be tortured for eternity because they didn't follow your exact idea of a god.
Bless your poor little heart. Just a bunch of mean old Christians in here. And if you just accept Jesus as your Savior, you don't have to worry about the whole eternity thing.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 12:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If you ask me, you people get off lightly.
How so? What would you do about us people?
Page 10 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News