Re: Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

tubeguru wrote:
> 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.

No answer, I see. Bull*** confirmed.

<snip>
> >>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.

EHHHHH!! WRONG. Bacteria consist of cells. They live, multiply, and
continue to exist--yet no one would argue that they have consciousness.
(Except, perhaps, you.)


> 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.

All reasonable assertions. You're learning!

> So who wrote the instructions?

Oddly enough, the instructions seem to have written themselves. The
earliest amino acids were formed by chemical reactions in the presence
of lightning (as has been shown in laboratory experiments). Once
chemistry drove the process far enough for replication to occur,
biology was capable of sustaining the blueprint for its own survival:
DNA.

> We know that the "junk DNA" common to all DNA based life is identical in all organisms.

Shocking! You mean all organisms share a common ancestor? So evolution
IS fact!


> We suspect that this "junk DNA" contains instructions for the cell to follow, as
> has been shown in denucleation experiments.

Right again! DNA does provide instructions for cells to follow. Much of
the "junk DNA" appears to be dormant--that part was most likely old
instructions that an organism no longer needs in its current
evolutionary state.

> Consciousness therefore in some form must exist on all levels of
> existence from the molecular on up.

FAR off base. You're equating chemistry and chemically-driven
processes with consciousness, which is laughable! When you combine
hydrogen and oxygen in a test tube, and you light a match, the two
elements "know" to combine to make oxygen. Does that make them
"conscious"? Of course not.

"Consciousness" requires a brain.

> >>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.

If pharmocological data is doctored or withheld, that's not
science--it's subterfuge. The finding that a drug may be
dangerous--now *that's* science. it involves testing. Religion does not
test its assertions, because it cannot.

Science finds only what it can PROVE.

> >>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.....

An idiotic statement. Science is the OPPOSITE of religion. An idea
can be preconceived, introduced by discovery, and--in the case of
science--proven to be true or false by TESTING.


> >>Science wants to know about the universe.
> >
> >You're 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...

You failed. (Someone with your limited mental faculties should avoid
any attempt at metaphor.)

> 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.....

Keep studying! You'll see the light someday.

> >>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.....

You're making us all experts on what you *don't*.

> >>>>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?

Like I said--once organisms developed consciousness, that was an
advantage, and it affected the evolutionary path. But only an idiot
would assert that primordial single-celled organism were "conscious".

Now, the laws of physics--which underly everything we're
discussing--are another matter. The laws of Physics are what they are.
WHY they're that way is a great mystery. And THAT'S where religion and
philosophy can conjecture. Given the bedrock of physical laws, however,
there is no need for--or evidence for--external, specific, "hand of
God" control over evolution. Nature is complex enough and rich enough
to account for life as it exists.


> >>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.....

Oh really? You mean that your claim that "4.5 billion years is simply
not enough time" to account for evolution doesn't amount to "taking the
side" against evolution?

Are you four years old?

> Does consciousness really require a nervous system?

In any intelligent definition of consciousness, YES.

> Or is the entire universe alive and we don't perceive it due to our limited preceptive
> capability.....

Are you your own grandpa?

There's a lot in the universe that we don't understand. SCIENCE is the
discipline of discovering that which we do not yet know. Anything you
assert requires PROOF.


>
> >>>>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.

HAHAHAHA! I'll alert the loony police. We appear to have an escaped
inmate.

> >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.

SETI is looking in many different places. They may eventually discover
something.

> 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.

Oddly, the laws of Physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
What would you have SETI look for? Green alien brainwaves?

We can pick up radio waves from pulsars that are millions of light
years away from earth. Alien transmissions would be detected in the
same way.


> >>>>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.)

(You continue to avoid giving any evidence at all for your "argument".)

> >>(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.

(No comment on that either, I see. How can you even use a computer? You
apparently believe that science isn't capable of the discoveries
involved in developing one.)

> >>>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.....

It was right on your level. Which is why I asked it.

> >>>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.

HORSE***! You speak only of pharmaceutical companies, which you
brought up before. Sure, those companies are trying to make money--but
they have also come up with lifesaving medications. (Consider current
AIDS treatments, for example.) There are tens of thousands of
scientists around the world, in universities and research labs, who
pursue science because they are dedicated to the discovery of new
knowledge. The vast majority are far from wealthy.

> By the way Tesla was deeply religious and believed that God guided his
> hand.

Many scientists have been religious--but they were smart enough not to
let religion hamper their quest for discovery.

> The leading cause of death is medical error, well over half a million a year....

HAHAHA! BULL***! Where are you getting this bogus crap? (Perhaps a
UFO told you?) Here's the CDC data for US causes of death:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

As you can see, the leading cause of death in the USA is heart disease,
followed by cancer and stroke.


> >>>>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.

(You STILL fail to respond to reason and evidence.)


> >>>>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.)

(No comment on those hard facts either, I see.)

> >>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?......

Galileo studied medicine and mathematics at the University of Pisa. He
later taught mathematics in Florence and Siena, and he was eventually
appointed to the mathematics chair at the University of Pisa.

What the *** is YOUR degree in, moron?

(By the way--Galileo began his studies in a monastery, where he was
preparing to join an order of monks, so he was a religious man. These
learned monks were nothing like the ***-for-brains Christian
Fundamentalists we see today.)


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

(You don't comment on that, either.)

> >
> >>...... 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....

HAHAHA! WHAT "intelligence"?

Maybe you should read something other than a cereal box.


> > --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.

I do--every day. That's the difference between you and me.

> My point is that as long as science is driven largely by consumerist goals

It is not, as I have indicated. (You seem to define all of science as
"Merck Incorporated".)

> and religion seeks to control thought,

The worst religion indeed does. The best religion provides spritual
and philosohical comfort while allowing for new discovery.

> the truth will remain hidden....

If plug-stupid, ignorant, right-wing, fundamentalists Christians and
Muslims have their way, you're absolutely right.

> My belief system is simply to have an open mind.

So open, in fact, that the whole thing fell out.

> I have nothing against either other than the above.

>>From your comments, it's obvious that you are lying--or lying to
yourself.

> There are plenty of avenues in both science
> and religion that haven't been explored for those reasons.
> TG

To recap, boys and girls:

SCIENCE is the process of discovery and proof through testing.
RELIGION (as followed by tubeguru) is the blind adherence to unproven
notions, and the unwillingness to pursue or accept the truth.

Case closed.

--E

.