Genesis is a biblical myth, existing only in the bible. It cannot be considered as fact. (mythology, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only if you have a layman's understanding of what a "theory" is in science.
Scientific Theory: a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Hmmm ... how have I not establsihed that I understand this concept? Let's see ... theory relates to observation, experimentation, testing ... basically adheres to the scientific method.
That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
Sooooo .... right back at ya. I love the unjustified intellectual elitism of all you Dawkins lovers on here and that you think you are the only ones with any real education, rational thought or logic. The arrogance astounds me.
Nothing fake and no outrage here. I was simply pointing out that you and others like you on this forum make assertions about me that are simply false. In not one of my posts have I ever tried to defend my position with some religous text or argument. Hell, I haven't even taken the affirmative. I'm just asking you to pony up the evidence or proof for "your" assertions. Rather than doing that, you continue with personal attacks which only serves to give you less and less credibility.
Intelligent Design in an of itself is a religious ideal. Your continued refusal to veven admit this destroyed your credibility long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
Contradiction in terms. You've got to be joking. "Proven" would mean "proof" which would surpass "theory". Might I recommend you get your terms and definitions straight. The descent of all life from a common ancestor is not proven - that is not even solid theory. It is hypothesis. Adaptation and variation are proven. I would concede there is some "evidence" that could be interpreted to support common descent but there is most certainly zero "proof" of it or "proof" that one type of organism has ever transformed into a completey different type of organism.
Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "theory".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
Citations please. No, we don't "know" where human life evolved from. It is all complete speculation. I've read Dawkins and Gould and several other contemporary works by various evolutionary biologists. None of them make so bold of an assertion as you just made. At least most of them, when pressed, actually admit that significant problems and holes exist in their conclusions. You make claims that have no basis in reality. Show me some hard, peer reviewed and verified "proof" that we can all go read and confirm as valid through some type of independent verification ... not loosely interpreted evidence... and I'll concede. My challenge stands.
Good gods. Yes, we know our Human ancestery, and the Evolutionary tree as well. We have hard physical evidence of this. If you cannot accept widely accepted scientific fact, then you have no interest in science and only wish to further the religious ideal of ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
Again, my challenge stands. A youtube video is not scientific evidence of your claims of "proof" of common descent or the origin of man. If you are so certain in your assertions, quit posting videos and give us all some light technical reading (not an internet commentary) that we can test against the works of other scientists.
Feel free to show where I stated it as "proof of common decent", I offered as proof utterly disproving the asanine ideal of Intelligent Design. The simple fact that you cannot accept the word of a learned, degreed individual shows your inherent intillectual dishonesty, and the basis of your entire argument, which is to ignore accepted scientific proofs to forward your religious agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
I'm not demanding anything. I'm only stating the facts... unlike you and several of the other evolutionists in this forum. Fact: abiogenesis is not observed, tested, or reproduced. That is not open to interpretation nor is it debatable. Fact: the descent of all life from a common ancestor is not observed, tested, or reproduced. Fact: The ability of one type of organism to evolve or mutate into a completely different type of organism is not observed, tested, or reproduced. If any of these are actually observed, tested, and reproduced... please enlighten me with verifiable scientific evidence. In evolution and abiogenesis, science has been hijacked by that which is completely unscientific. Baseless assertions, speculation, and leaps of logic abound in evolutionary paradigms.
Horse hockey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
At least you finally admit "is thought" instead of asserting facts that don't exist. Props to you. It's about time. However, you need to read up on your microbiology. All of the most recent work on drug resistant bacteria has established that those resistant strains are already present and don't suddenly mutate from the non-resistant strains. When the non-resistant strains are eliminated or reduced by the drug, the resistant strains flourish. When the non-resistant strains are reintroduced, the resistant strains decline. Viruses are a different critter .... buuuuttttttt....
Feel free to source the above. Valid links only please, no ID pseudoscience or YECer sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
Mmmm ... no, it isn't. There is no evidence that a bacterium or virus is ever capable of being anything other than a bacterium or virus or capable of ever reproducing into something that is not a bacterium or virus. Bacteria that may mutate to become drug resistant are still bacteria. It is a huge leap of logic to assert that because bacteria can adapt and vary that they can eventually turn into a jack-rabbit. There is no evidence that this type of cumulative retention of new genetic information is possible - let alone plausible or factual.
You ask for proof and offer none in return, so noted.
Scientific Theory: a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Hmmm ... how have I not establsihed that I understand this concept? Let's see ... theory relates to observation, experimentation, testing ... basically adheres to the scientific method.
That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
Sooooo .... right back at ya. I love the unjustified intellectual elitism of all you Dawkins lovers on here and that you think you are the only ones with any real education, rational thought or logic. The arrogance astounds me.
The fact that you can psot the definition of a theory, and then attempt to disqualify the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE it is a thoery illustrates perfectly the level of intillectual dishonesty you will sink to to forward your religious agenda.
Intelligent Design in an of itself is a religious ideal. Your continued refusal to veven admit this destroyed your credibility long ago.
Are you completely mental? I just said I'm not relying on religious texts or arguments to try to make my case. Nor am I really even trying to make a case at all. I'm asking you to make yours. Yet you continue to dodge the challenge and continue to fail to actually post links to your "proof" right here for all of us to go forth and read and research.
You don't do that because you can't. Because that proof you are so fond of asserting does not exist. Instead you resort to claiming that I destroy my credibility by failing to acknowledge that I am relying on religion as my basis for opposing the unsubstantiated claims of the hypothesis of common descent. I do not even need to establish any credibility for myself - I'm not the one trying to assert facts or proofs that don't exist.
Let me make this clear one more time: Post some observable, testable, reproducible evidence that supports the contention that one type of organism is capable of undergoing adaptations and mutations that lead to the successive accumulation of new genetic information that eventually results in an entirely different type of organism ... do this and I'll concede ... I'll give up. It's not about proving me wrong ... I'm not making any claims ... it's about backing up your claims with verifiable proofs.
Good gods. Yes, we know our Human ancestery, and the Evolutionary tree as well. We have hard physical evidence of this. If you cannot accept widely accepted scientific fact, then you have no interest in science and only wish to further the religious ideal of ID.
Please provide some links to your proof. A collection of fossils does not "prove" common descent.
I have zero personal attachment to ID. I'm more than willing to buy into evolution as the source for all speciation as soon as I see some convincing evidence. You claim it's all there. Bring it on.
Feel free to show where I stated it as "proof of common decent", I offered as proof utterly disproving the asanine ideal of Intelligent Design. The simple fact that you cannot accept the word of a learned, degreed individual shows your inherent intillectual dishonesty, and the basis of your entire argument, which is to ignore accepted scientific proofs to forward your religious agenda.
I asked you for some proof ... you brought up the video ... AGAIN. And now ... you are bringing it up ... AGAIN.
I am not concerned with some video commentary. Link me to the technical material. I'm well educated and can certainly comprehend it. I work in data analysis and statistics and have friends who are into viral pathology, cell biology, geology/volcanology, and research physics. These are field scientists and not wanna-bes who took a few college classes and now think they are experts in evolutionary biology. But, they know their respective fields and have no agenda (ID or evolution), so I trust their perspectives and know that I can go to them with information and they'll provide me with objectivity and insight. If it is not their field, they'll say so and get me in touch with someone they know who does work in that particular area.
I accept the word of learned scientists all the time. For nearly two years, I got to have these very same conversations with one of the most sought after and respected research physicists in this country (Peter Poulson). He's done work for medical diagnostics, the US military and NASA. He's a Ph.D. in physics that doesn't hide out teaching in college classrooms and has been at his work for nearly 30 years. He's out there doing it. As well, a very close friend that I went to school with is a geologist/volcanologist who has worked in Vanuatu, Peru, and Hawaii. I also get to have frequent conversations on these topics with an accomplished viral pathologist/molecular biologist who works for the same agency I do. I trust the technical information he has passed along to me much more than your baseless assertions that you continue to fail to back up with any evidence. And for the record ... the physicist is the only christian in the bunch ... the other two guys do not have any religious belief to speak of. Thus, they have no bias to protect or defend.
Don't think for one second that just because you read a couple textbooks and someone disagrees with your assertions that person has not been exposed to "real science". I would hope that you are not truly that arrogant.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 08-12-2009 at 09:46 PM..
There are countless others, but you'll get the basic idea. More and more research showing the drug resistance does not come from mutation, but from gene transfer from one type of bacteria to another. In other words, a bacterium does not create it's own new genetic information through mutation, it gets the information from another bacterium that already has that info. So, this concept that bacteria can create their own new genetic information is on shaky ground. Or, you'll also read that the mutation is already present in some of the bacteria ... not stimulated by the presence of an antibiotic... and then those bacteria are the ones that live on to produce offspring:
"those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live
on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which
will result in a fully resistant colony."
Andersson, D.I., and B.R. Levin. 1999. The biological cost
of antibiotic resistance. Current Opinion in Microbiology
2:489–493.
Tankovic, J., D. Lamarque, J.-C. Delchier, C.-J. Soussy, A. Labigne,
and P.J. Jenks. 2000. Frequent association between
alteration of the rdxA gene and metronidazole resistance in
French and North African isolates Helicobacter pylori. Antimicrobial
Agents and Chemotherapy 44:608–613.
Miller, C., L.E. Thomsen, C. Gaggero, R. Mosseri, H. Ingmer,
S.N. Cohen. 2004. SOS response induction by ß-lactams
and bacterial defense against antibiotic lethality. Science
305:1629–1631.
etc, etc, etc ....
Now ... your turn ... lets see "proof" of all your baseless claims in these posts.
The fact that you can psot the definition of a theory, and then attempt to disqualify the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE it is a thoery illustrates perfectly the level of intillectual dishonesty you will sink to to forward your religious agenda.
What's the next target, the Theory of Gravity?
Are you a complete ding-dong? In not one of my posts have I ever said I am attempting to disqualify the theory of evolution. It is the hypothesis of common descent and abiogenesis that I don't subscribe to.
Evolution ... if we define it as change over time, adaptation and variation within a species ... that's better than theory .... that's observable, testable, reproducible fact.
If we define evolution as the descent of all life from a common ancestor through only natural forces, natural selection, and undirected genetic mutation ... it's not sound theory - it's total bunk. By definition ... in order for neo-darwinist evolution to be considered theory, it needs to be based on observation, testing and experimentation... as good science should. We cannot do this with living organisms because (according to evolutionists) it just takes too much time. That's a great excuse for getting out of having to observe, test, and experiment. I'm not trying to impose unrealistic expectations ... but come on ... if we cannot observe it, test it and experiment with it, we cannot rightly call it good theory or good science. It is nothing more than wild speculation based on loose interpretation of weak evidence and leaps of logic.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 08-12-2009 at 10:24 PM..
Feel free to source the above. Valid links only please, no ID pseudoscience or YECer sources.
You ask for proof and offer none in return, so noted.
And ... you are either exceptionally ignorant, naive, or simply out of touch if you honestly believe the only scientists who oppose evolutionary paradigms are phony, ID, or YEC.
I could run you off a very, very long list of respected, well-educated, agnostic and atheist scientists in virtually any scientific field that have completed work that flies in the face of at least one of the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionary biologists.
Bring it.
I am fully confident us "bible-thumping/yec/id/loony/fundies" (as you would like to categorize me) can out-evidence you ad nauseam in this thread. and actually post technical info too ...
Can you please elaborate? I'm not familiar with "horse hockey" being a technical rebuttal.
Are you trying to insinuate that abiogenesis is observable, testable, and reproducible? If so, please provide links.
Are you trying to insinuate that that an organism creating it's own new genetic information and that the successive accumulation of new genetic information can result in an organism becoming a different type of organism is observable, testable, and reproducible? If so, please provide links?
"Horse hockey" does not quite a logical and valid argument make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now ... your turn ... lets see "proof" of all your baseless claims in these posts. 
