An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

Typically, I don't either, but for some people, the only way to deal with them is to ignore them. It reminds me of this conversation I had with a geocentrist once, where nothing - no amount of evidence, no facts, nothing - was getting through to him. I knew I should stop, but I felt compelled to respond. It would be like if someone told me that 1+1=3; something's are just so wrong that I feel sort of compelled to say something, even knowing how fruitless the discussion is going to be. And the only way to avoid that, for me, is the ignore button.

Was the geocentrist either one of the two that Potholer54 featured?

 

[lasthero]

Was the geocentrist either one of the two that Potholer54 featured?

Nah, this was on Gamefaqs, the Religion board. This crazy guy called FlashOfLight.

Bill Nye the "science guy" criticizes creationism - Religion Message Board - GameFAQs

He showed up and started debating evolution. He was kind of weird, even by creationist standards; he would constantly bring up things that didn't really support his position then claim they did (like, he claimed that the way dirt comes while a bathtub is draining proved the global flood) It was really hard to debate him, not because his arguments held any real merit, but because he was so longwinded and his points made so few connections that you couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say. Never mind his fetish for runon sentences.

Until he offhandedly mentioned his belief that geocentricism was being withheld from students. Then it got interesting.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Oblate spheroid, actually.

A oblaticus spheroidicus actually.

 

[lasthero]

A oblaticus spheroidicus actually.

Nope.

 

[nuttypiglet]

If human intelligence and the mind evolved, why didn't it evolve with the way evolution works? Evolution relies on death, death of inferior species to allow new stronger ones to come through. Death should be a thing to celebrate, woohoo this disease won't destroy us, look we have stronger variations taking over. Isn't it a fact that we are quite the opposite? seeing death as wrong and unfair and don't we get angry when a loved one dies? It seems to me that the human mind is geared more to the idea that death shouldn't exist.
I know there are silly theories about this, but none quite fit the plot.

 

[lasthero]

If human intelligence and the mind evolved, why didn't it evolve with the way evolution works? Evolution relies on death, death of inferior species to allow new stronger ones to come through. Death should be a thing to celebrate, woohoo this disease won't destroy us, look we have stronger variations taking over. Isn't it a fact that we are quite the opposite? seeing death as wrong and unfair and don't we get angry when a loved one dies? It seems to me that the human mind is geared more to the idea that death shouldn't exist.
I know there are silly theories about this, but none quite fit the plot.

What humans believe has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution.

 

[nuttypiglet]

What humans believe has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution.

So the mind didn't evolve then?

 

[lasthero]

So the mind didn't evolve then?

The brain did.

 

[Skaloop]

So the mind didn't evolve then?

That in no way follows from what he said.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

So what about the countless thousands of professional scientists who actually study this stuff every day for decades upon decades and who, over the past nearly 200 years have come to the conclusion that evolution IS true?

Are you holding out some killer piece of evidence that will render the collected science of millions of person-hours of research completely false?

Or are you just repeating what a few religion-biased, scientifically illiterate organizations tell you is the truth about evolution?

If it's the former, please show us! (And it can't be one of the PRATT List).

Evolution costs money. Creation was free.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did not say it magically forms. I said it forms following standard basic chemical/physical rules. In fact sort of like the same rules that "create" ice crystals in your freezer.



Think about this for a second: if there wasn't a system by which the structure would collapse under virtually no stress, would it be here today?

But remember, you started off asking about DNA, not "error correction". I answered the point about DNA and it's development, while DNA is very cool and fascinating, it doesn't utilize ANYTHING that isn't basic chemistry which equally applies to all other chemicals.

DNA has error correction in it. It's part of it. So please answer how all of this is here. It's got to be more involved than "DNA grows like ice crystals"

that is absurdly simplistic for error correction. plus it's digital. even athiests agree it is. That means that the whole program must be in place before it can work.

no guess work.

if we can't manufacture DNA with all our mind powers from raw materials (not DNA) how is it that mother nature manufactured this software program?

Like an ice crystal? please.

you have to try a little harder than that.

 

[Armoured]

So it would surprise you to learn that artificial DNA is a thing that has been being made for some time, huh?

 

[bhsmte]

DNA has error correction in it. It's part of it. So please answer how all of this is here. It's got to be more involved than "DNA grows like ice crystals"

that is absurdly simplistic for error correction. plus it's digital. even athiests agree it is. That means that the whole program must be in place before it can work.

no guess work.

if we can't manufacture DNA with all our mind powers from raw materials (not DNA) how is it that mother nature manufactured this software program?

Like an ice crystal? please.

you have to try a little harder than that.

How much research have you really done on the theory of evolution, from peer reviewed sources?

The tone of your questions suggests this;

Either you have done very little research, or you simply disregard the objective evidence because it does not fit with your faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

I really don't care what Stephen Meyers has to say.

He is totally out of his depth. He is not a valid source either.

Do you understand the importance of peer review when it comes to science?

Of course if I challenge you to use peer reviewed sources you will have nothing. It is still a valid point to keep hammering you with.

phd from cambridge is not a valid source?

how many phd's in anything, from anywhere have you quoted in the last 2 weeks?

please link to them.

If you want peer review, again how many have you posted?

please provide links.

I am thinking this is just a red herring from answering the questions posed by digitial error correcting DNA as provided by phd from cambridge steve meyers...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7769322-5/#post64067715

 

[Subduction Zone]

phd from cambridge is not a valid source?

how many phd's in anything, from anywhere have you quoted in the last 2 weeks?

Yes, a PhD who is discussing a subject well out of his PhD has very little credibility. You don't go to a PhD and ask him what is wrong with your car. A PhD is not a guarantee that he knows everything. In fact when you make obvious mistakes outside of your specialty you lose credibility even in your own specialty. That is what Meyers did.

And I have not counted the ones that I have linked, at least when I do it is by specialists working in their specialty.

please link to them.

If you want peer review, again how many have you posted?

Again, I am not the one trying to bust peer reviewed science. I have linked sites like this one: Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

You can bet that was prepared by PhD's those articles are based on peer reviewed science. I also linked to Talk Origins, again the articles in that site are written by PhD's with links to the original peer reviewed science that they are based upon. I really have not linked to too much since your side has not posted anything but nonsense that was easily debunked. For example statements that we did not have evidence when you did not even know what evidence is. Or did you forget that failure of yours?

I am thinking this is just a red herring from answering the questions posed by digitial error correcting DNA as provided by phd from cambridge steve meyers...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7769322-5/#post64067715

And again, stevearino has no clue. DNA is not a digital code. At best it is a "digital recipe".

Do you know what DNA does?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes, a PhD who is discussing a subject well out of his PhD has very little credibility. You don't go to a PhD and ask him what is wrong with your car. A PhD is not a guarantee that he knows everything. In fact when you make obvious mistakes outside of your specialty you lose credibility even in your own specialty. That is what Meyers did.

And I have not counted the ones that I have linked, at least when I do it is by specialists working in their specialty.


Again, I am not the one trying to bust peer reviewed science. I have linked sites like this one: Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

You can bet that was prepared by PhD's those articles are based on peer reviewed science. I also linked to Talk Origins, again the articles in that site are written by PhD's with links to the original peer reviewed science that they are based upon. I really have not linked to too much since your side has not posted anything but nonsense that was easily debunked. For example statements that we did not have evidence when you did not even know what evidence is. Or did you forget that failure of yours?




And again, stevearino has no clue. DNA is not a digital code. At best it is a "digital recipe".

Do you know what DNA does?

PHD? pffft, my Father was right when he said "You can teach many things, but you can't teach common sense".

 

[lasthero]

Common sense is overrated.

 

[Skaloop]

PHD? pffft, my Father was right when he said "You can teach many things, but you can't teach common sense".

And common sense is neither.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PHD? pffft, my Father was right when he said "You can teach many things, but you can't teach common sense".

gradyll can't help it. But then I have seen you say some pretty foolish things too. So you should not be so quick to insult him.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, a PhD who is discussing a subject well out of his PhD has very little credibility. You don't go to a PhD and ask him what is wrong with your car.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."

how is steve out of His league discussing origin of life?

they don't have an origin of life phd, HE got the closest you can get.

PhD in the History & philosophy of science.

A total of 89 Nobel Prizes winners are affiliates of the university of cambridge

now I know your just beating around the bush trying not to discuss the evolution of the DNA.