Re: Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

Ether wrote:

tubeguru wrote:


Ether wrote:



tubeguru wrote:



The Repair Guy wrote:


tubeguru <tubeguru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Phil Wilson wrote:


Post a link to any evolutionists who say that the planet
is not old enough.  Never heard that one before.



I've heard it before. From creationists.



It was told to me in a conversation I had with a geneticist
who had worked on the original DNA project  in the '40s.



"The original DNA project"? What and when was that?



He was a graduate student at the time working under Dr Francis Crick at
Cambridge in the late 40's. You know, the guy who discovered DNA.



What's his *name*? Identify the person.



And what would you do with it?



Verify your bull*** story.  The fact that you give no details confirms
my suspicion that it is a fabricated anecdote.



He is the father of a good friend of mine. The premise
is this: If the evolutionary process had relied solely on
natural selection, as many of the evolutionists maintain,


Who are the "evolutionists" claiming this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"Today most evolutionary biologists believe that
evolution does not necessarily require, or exclusively
depend on, natural selection; and natural selection
does not guarantee evolution let alone adaptive
evolution."



OK, so without all that where does that leave evolution. What is the
mechanism for it?


Genetic mutation over time + environmental forces. Simple.



Not so simple to go from bacterium to complex organisms.



The general explanation is relatively simple.  The process took
billions of years--that's a very long time.  And a process *that*
protracted is bound to be complex in retrospect.



Remember the rate of genetic mutation even under the most favorable
conditions is not great enough in the time alloted.



Bull***. (You can't "remember" something that isn't true, by the way.)
Do you have any idea how long even a MILLION years is?  We're talking
hundreds of millions of years here.  The fossil record shows us that
many species have lived, died, and evolved during that period.  Where
the *** do you think humans came from? And *when*?



Viruses can mutate ata fairly rapid pace, but they remain viruses.



In our incredibly brief experience, yes.  (Bacteria would be a better
example, because they actually consist of cells.)



4.5 billion years is simply not enough time.



Says who?  (Are you a total idiot, or just playing one on TV?)  4.5
billion years was apparently *plenty* of time, and all scientific
evidence (including our own existence) indicates that fact.

Do you have any evidence at all to back up that assertion? (Other than
something Pat Robertson said, that is.)



To go from pre-DNA life to single celled organisms is a huge jump.



In terms of phylogeny, that's true. Yet it happened.  And all the
evidence before us points to that. Even aspects of our own
physiology--mitochondria, for example--suggest that humans and other
advanced organisms came from combinations of other, simpler organisms.
Just because you're not mentally equipped to grasp the concept doesn't
mean that it disn't happen.  Open your eyes.

(In terms you can understand:  God gave us brains so that we may see,
learn, and understand--that life has not always been as we see it
today.)



You can distill it down to some kind of crazy exponential chemical chain
reaction, which it certainly has been proven to be.



Eureka! There's the truth emerging from the murky depths. (And it was
only a chemical chain reaction in the beginning. Once you have a cell
that can reproduce, it's not just about chemistry--it's biology. And
once you have a nervous system, it's about behavior.)


So if life is a complex chemical chain creation, and all we are are bags of reacting chemicals, then chemicals are capable of consciousness.... I think you can figure out where this goes. In order for us to function as organisms we must possess consciousness on a cellular level otherwise we wouldn't exist the way we do. In order for a cell to function properly in an organism it must know how to react to certain stimuli, it has to get it's instructions from somewhere, it must know it's job and it's place in the organism otherwise the organism fails.
So who wrote the instructions? We know that the "junk DNA" common to all DNA based life is identical in all organisms. We suspect that this "junk DNA" contains instructions for the cell to follow, as has been shown in denucleation experiments.
Consciousness therefore in some form must exist on all levels of existence from the molecular on up.



But Why are we here?



Depends on the type of explanation you're looking for: Philosophical or
Physical.  The former is what religion and philosophy try to explain.
The latter is what evolutionary science deals with.  The two are not
mutually exclusive, which is why fundamentalist aversion to evolution
is so idiotic.

Science explains how humans came to exist on earth, from the primordial
soup to higher primates. How or why the universe exists to begin with
is something that science can only strive to discover. Religion, on
the other hand, does not discover--it creates a story to calm the
nervous minds of believers. Nothing wrong with religious conviction
*unless* it gets in the way of actual fact. For some, a good story is
better than not really knowing why we're here.


Science and all thought for that matter operates on preconceived notions. You don't know me yet you have made certain assumptions about me based on your preconceived notions about the universe. Science like religion finds what it wants to find and anomalous findings are suppressed and not investigated. The testing of pharmaceuticals is a prime example, as is religious fundamentalism.



That's the real question that both sides really want the answer to and
they both have preconceived notions about the answer.



No, only religion has preconceived notions.  Science is the testing of
ideas to prove or disprove them.



Isn't an idea a preconceived notion? Science is a religion.....

Science wants to know about the universe.



Your right, there.



Religion is concerned with what the universe knows about us.



Uh, no. Religion is about what man can make up about the origins of the
universe. We have no idea what the universe "knows about us," whatever
the hell that means.


I was making a metaphor which I guess was lost on you...
Actually, quantum physics has some very interesting ideas about that.
That the universe exists in at least in part due to our perception of it. That everything exists simultaneously everywhere.....



Kinda like Yin and Yang dude......



Don't insult Asian tradition as well. (Something else you know nothing
about.)


I'm so glad you're an expert on what I know.....




Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that evolution
didn't happen, I'm saying that the mechanism of evolution is unexplained
by current science.



BULL***.  Evolution has been "explained" by science for the last
hundred years.  And backed up by the fossil record.  So...I'm curious:
Where do you think dinosaur bones came from?



It makes just as much sense to say that life evolved
itself through its own consciousness



LAUGHABLE!  Have you gone to school past the second grade? Ever engaged
in rational thought?  Your consciousness couldn't evolve you out of a
paper bag.



It doesn't make sense that as an organism becomes more complex its
consciousness evolves also enabling it to better survive and adapt?



Exactly! Consciousness seems to have come about as an evolutionary
advantage. Beings that are large, obvious, and unconscious tend to get
eaten.


Or is evolution resultant of consciousness? Chicken or the egg?



Kind of like a symbiosis. You don't feel that the consciousness of an
organism contributes to it's evolution? How odd....



Consciousness did not exist right off the bat--it requires a developed
nervous system.  But sure--once consciousness comes into play, it's an
advantage, and it affects the evolutionary path.

(Now you're arguing my side. Thanks!)



In case you haven't noticed I haven't really taken a side.....
Does consciousness really require a nervous system? Or is the entire universe alive and we don't perceive it due to our limited preceptive capability.....

or that aliens indulged in a little experimentation.



While there is probably life elsewhere in our vast universe, there is
zero evidence of prior contact with another civilization.



Not true, there's plenty of historical evidence.......



Like what, exactly? (Don't tell me you spend your summer vacation in
Roswell.)


There have been accounts of objects in the sky for centuries.... What appear to be UFOs have even been depicted in paintings.

So far, the SETI program has discovered zilch in terms of radio
broadcasts from alien civilizations.


SETI is looking in the wrong place most likely. Again with the preconceived notions. The assumption that that other life would be using radio and that those signals can make it to earth in sufficient strength to be detected.



I agree that Intelligent Design is little more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo.


You're right about that.  That's the first reasonable thing you've
said. Maybe there *is* hope for intelligent life in the universe.



However, the fact remains that science is unable to come up with an intelligent
answer to the question of evolution



BULL***.  Science has had an "intelligent" explanation for the process
of evolution for the past hundred years.  It has been confirmed and
reconfirmed by laboratory research, the study of genetics, and the
fossil record.

If there's no such thing as evolution, why is everyone so concerned
that the Avain Flu will mutate into strain that is capable of spreading
into and between humans? That's called "EVOLUTION".

Since you don't seem to have access to a grade school, here's a primer
on evolution for you:

        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/



and that science is at least as caught up it its own dogma as religion is.



HORSE***. That's what a religious nut would have you believe.
Religion is dogma.  Science is the rigorous testing of theories, and
the intelligent discovery of truth--and the way things really work.



Not true, scientists are people, so are the religious.



Yes--but scientists are devoted to discovery through systematic search.
The religious are not.  The spiritual, by its very nature, cannot be
proven--only believed.



All human beings are mired to one degree or another with their in their own dogmas



Sounds nice.  You carefully avoid my questions about scientific
discoveries, I see below.  Technology is direct evidence of the
efficacy of science.  What similar proof do you have for your
statements? (None.)



(as
you have evidenced with the your colorful descriptions of various
excreta in your last two additions to this thread), it blinds us to what
is.



That's mainly true of religion.  Some scientists may adhere to theories
that are later disproven--but that's the beauty of science:  Testing is
its essence.  Religion has no procedures for testing.




Think of the minuscule amount of the energy spectrum that we can
perceive yet we base our our perception of the universe on it....



Ah yes--but we have developed the radio telescope, the geiger counter,
the mass spectrometer, and countless other devices to expand our own
meager senses.  All of these are the product of science.

Would you go to Chernobyl these days without a radiation dosimeter? If
you believe in the inefficacy of science, you'd probably forge right
ahead--and die a horrible, agonizing death.



Perhaps you still believe that thunder is caused by a god with a large
hammer.



(I see you failed to anwer that...too close to home?)


No, I simply didn't regard it as an intelligent question.....



If you believe that "science is caught up in its own dogma," then
perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car or use electricity in
your home--both made possible by scientific discoveries. And if you
need an operation, forget seeing a doctor.



(You ignored that one, too. Telling.)


Science exists in these times as the lapdog of the financial community.
By the way Tesla was deeply religious and believed that God guided his hand. The leading cause of death is medical error, well over half a million a year....



They're both wrong because they're unwilling to think outside the box.


That describes fundmentalist religion PERFECTLY.  Science is all about
"thinking outside the box"?  How do you think we came up with the
nuclear bomb?  Splitting the atom seemed incredibly farfetched in the
1940s--even to a lot of scientists.

Do you really believe the moronic crap you're saying?



Do you?



(And you ignored the nuclear bomb. Hilarious!)

The difference here is that I'm advancing actual evidence for my
argument, and you're waving your arms.



There is nothing in any of the creation myths that precludes evolution,



True.  But because the Bible (written by men, by the way) doesn't
specifically mention evolution (not surprising, since learning was pretty
limited back then), a lot of religious nuts claim that it must not
exist.  They're wrong.



and there's nothing in science that precludes external intelligence.



True--as long as there is demonstrable evidence for that, which there
is not.



However the dogmatism of both precludes the discovery of the truth.


MORONIC BULL***. Religious fundamentalist dogma DOES preclude the
discovery of the truth, because it precludes looking.  Science is the
discipline of LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, and proving it.



So because something hasn't been proved scientifically it does not
exist?



Because something has not been proven scientifically, it has not been
PROVEN to exist.  Science strives for proof through examination and
testing.

It wasn't until fairly recently that subatomic particles were *proven*
to exist.  Scientists suspected that they did--through great study and
thought--and devised experiments to prove that they *do* exist.  (Try
mentioning the very existence of atoms to a writer of the Bible.)




So the earth was flat until it was round?



Funny you should mention that: It was the CHURCH that claimed the earth
was flat, even going so far as to torture those who claimed it was
round. The CHURCH also claimed that the Sun orbited the Earth! A
SCIENTIST, Galileo, proved that it was the other way around.


And his degree was in?......

As you can see, religion has often stood in the way of truth when it
comes to the world around us.



...... OK, makes sense to me. Science is a way of EXPLAINING the truth, so is religion....



WRONG. Science is the process of DISCOVERING the truth.  Religion
developed as a way to explain the as-yet unexplainable to frightened
minds.



TG



You are either the dumbest fucking moron I've ever encountered, or the
most naive soul on earth.  Let's hope it's the latter

--E



Maybe neither......
TG



Definitely BOTH!

Look, tubeguru--it's apparent that you lack knowledge, learning, the
will to discover, and exposure to ideas and to the physical world
around you. There's nothing inherently wrong with that--you are the way
you are, and usually that's a product of your experience growing up.

But it wouldn't kill you to question your own belief system--that's
what science is all about. Prove or disprove--through hard evidence.

Try watching CSI this week. You'll get the gist.


I don't watch TV, I find the advertisements and most of the shows insulting to my intelligence. We prefer to read at my house....

 --E

P.S.  I respond not so much as to convince you, but more to protect any
impressionable minds who might happen upon your drivel.



It wouldn't kill you to question your belief system either. My point is that as long as science is driven largely by consumerist goals and religion seeks to control thought, the truth will remain hidden.... My belief system is simply to have an open mind. I have nothing against either other than the above. There are plenty of avenues in both science and religion that haven't been explored for those reasons.
TG
.