Fenderputty
Banned
TheExodu5 said:
To go against the Catholic Church and it's infallible Pope at the time ... it may as well have been written in stone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let there be Life! Scientists create RNA from base elements.
- Thread starter "God's Beard!"
- Start date
- Status
To go against the Catholic Church and it's infallible Pope at the time ... it may as well have been written in stone.
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
God placed them there just to fuck with us.
Diatribe1974
Member
Creationists will dismiss this as something along the lines of:
"Oh yeah? Well, you f*ckers didn't see it when the scientists when home at night and Jesus slipped into their lab and added a few bits of magic pixie dust to help them out. So there! SCIENCE BE DAMNED!"
"Oh yeah? Well, you f*ckers didn't see it when the scientists when home at night and Jesus slipped into their lab and added a few bits of magic pixie dust to help them out. So there! SCIENCE BE DAMNED!"
Nocebo said:
Interpretation of ape bones, teeth, fragments, in order to fit a plausible story, is an exercise in creativity, and not science. Evidence is disregarded when it doesn't fit, or shoved to the side. That's not science.
But species DO have some degree of flexibility, as I have said before. Science shows that they are just not flexible enough to become completely different yet viable creatures.
I don't use the Bible to give attributes to God in arguing for intelligence and purpose in design.
While we can infer design from empirical observation, I focus on why evolution is wrong.
Bleh... the bacteria's ability to digest citrate was almost there FROM THE BEGINNING, but it was unable to transport citrate under oxic conditions. A small change that happened after 31,500 generations (how many years is that in human generations?) lead to the digestion of this nutrient. Congrats... you just showed the disgustingly low probability of such a minuscule change happening in the world, and how difficult it is to imagine the diversity of life explained through this.
Patterns are not the same as interrelated systems that work together as a whole.
There is everything to indicate that systems are the result of order and purposeful design being applied. You can infer that it applies to the most complex and efficient systems ever conceived: living organisms.
Because we use natural laws to disprove evolution.
TheExodu5 said:
Isn't geocentricity core to most religions, those three especially? The emphasis on Earth and its creation, of prophecy and apocalypse, all assume the universe was made for and around the Earth. They pay no mind to the world beyond man.
There are no passages that implicitly state Earth being the center of the world(aside from a few passages implying it, ie: God stopping the sun for Joshua to hunt at night), but from a historical standpoint, that is how the books were written. They didn't know any better.
Nocebo said:
According to creationists, there are no transitional fossils. I forgot who said this, but if a creationist posits a gap between species, when you place a transitional fossil in between, he will just tell you there are 2 new gaps to fill.
Agent Ghost
aka MAJIKdR46oN
Are you from 150 years ago? It's not just bone fragments we're looking at. You have to look at the complete picture all of the various pieces of evidence paint.Bulla564 said:
What evidence has been disregarded and shoved to the side?
That's not what science shows.
Then where did your idea of a God come from if it wasn't from any religious sources? I find that hard to believe. Sounds like you're into "exercises in creativity" at any rate. Since nothing you have claimed is based on tested and predictable facts, rather it is based on direct observations of things around you. Basically it's not backed with a whole lot of data.
Example?
The probability isn't as low as you're making it out to be. It's a pretty significant change, yet you brush it aside like it's nothing because it doesn't fit your intelligent design idea?
What came first? The earth or us? What about the fact that species appeared gradually on earth and not all at once? Why did certain species disappear? Why are there so many species that have so much in common? Can intelligent design explain these things?
Jonm1010 said:
You guys won't change your minds no matter how much evolution is debunked. It's just fun to argue.
Mismatching fossils from mismatching dates are not uncommon anomalies in the fossil record. The complete picture is a nice set of extinct apes. To infer that they all share common ancestry is an unfalsifiable assumption.
Show me an instance of scientific experimentation leading to completely different yet viable creatures (and no, two mice that can no longer reproduce don't count). Science has shown this is not possible.
The similarities with macroevolutionary tales is striking. Yet, I'm not the one in denial about this.
Your car.
A half-capable process becoming fully capable is NOT a big leap. What's 31,500 e-coli generations? 600,000 human years, only to improve the function of something? I wonder how long it took to assemble our entire digestive system...
Actually a crap ton of species appear all at once at different intervals... evolutionists, of course, have to explain this away. Species can become extinct by many factors. Similarities don't infer common descent any more than common functionality. Yes, ID can explain these things and many others.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
DiatribeEQ said:
If anything, it's the scientists sprinkling the pixie dust by stacking the environment to get the results they want, which is fine for the purposes of this experiment. I don't want to take anything away from what this means, but I think you're actually giving this more credit than even the scientists are implying.
This could be the Miller experiment all over again, with both extremes making assumptions that didn't match what actually happened.
Bulla564 said:
Change our mind to what? An alternative that has absolutely no evidence scientifically to support it?
What i find amazing about you is you are obviously spending so much time trying to find holes in evolution yet just accept a far less plausible theory that has absolutely no scientific backing to be a viable alternative. Either your willfully dishonest or you somehow think that if evolution is debunked the default explanation has to be the Christian biblical account of creation. And in both those cases it makes you look silly.
wayward archer
Member
Bulla564 said:
No they are not, and I never implied that they were the same.
Again I say, what we interpret as 'order' can emerge from a chaotic system. You can find plenty of instances of this in mathematics, chemistry, and physics.
Except that we haven't, but whatever, since you will never accept this let's change the subject a bit: The stance of the IDer is that god HAD TO HAVE done things in a particular way, which limits god, when in reality if god is all-powerful and wise, he could just as easily have used evolution to create us. Setting up the dominos so to speak as another poster just put it.
The fact that a hardcore IDer can't wrap their head around that tells me this is entirely personal to them, which is just sad.
fortified_concept
Banned
I won't fall into the trap of replying to Bulla but you guys need to read carefully his explanation on the mutation of viruses, it's hilarious and you missed it:
Bulla564 said:
Bulla564 said:
Really? You're using generations to compare evolution between a multicellular organism to a single-celled prokaryote? You can't just extrapolate the scale across like that.
Even if you could, think about scale in numbers. There are more bacteria in your gut than there are cells of YOU. An order of magnitude in difference, I believe. Somewhere in the region of 10^14. 31,500 generations doesn't sound so much when that's only 0.00000003%. In just one person.
But I digress, because the comparison in that way is just stupid to begin with.
Is there something ID can't explain?
Karma Kramer
Banned
Is Bulla serious?
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
gkrykewy said:
There are retards on both sides. Hey look, I just quoted one!!
Jonm1010 said:
Evolution being believed by the majority, or evolution as the last resort to explain life through natural means, doesn't make it true, especially with so much against it. I have my own beliefs, but the point of this thread is to highlight the last resort explanation being a waste of time.
"Order" and balance in nature is seen through these systems.
Sure, but I am arguing that evolution HAS NOT happened through unguided natural means. Then, the mechanisms of evolution are irrelevant to the evolution of species (which I agree with). There is no point to the theory if it all has been a guided process by design.
mrkgoo said:
Pretty much.
Karma Kramer
Banned
gkrykewy said:
WTF
First of all you don't even know where that person resides in... second what country are you referring to?
People are discussing a topic and countering comments made by Bulla... its what a forum is
fortified_concept
Banned
VanMardigan said:
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know how the fuck a theory is proved? That's what they're doing here, proving a theory by creating RNA. Jesus fucking christ some of you people are dumb.
You made a wrong assumption. I wasn't talking about fossils but about biologic evidence amongst other things as well. The complete picture isn't just fossiles, it isn't just bioligy, it isn't just astronomy, etc. It's all those things combined.Bulla564 said:
You do realize complex evolution happens over tens of thousands of years?
My car is not like a living organism at all. Who put you on this earth? Was it an intelligent designer or your mom and dad? Or did your mom and dad actively design you? The difference is that a car can't reproduce itself. Organisms can. They are self sufficient. My car can't even drive by itself.
Can you show me a completely new species of organism being intelligently designed out of nothing right now?
You will find that it takes bacteria more generations to mutate and evolve than more complex organisms.
But before that? And before that? Don't you agree that species became more and more varied as time went on? It wasn't this varied from the start was it? How does intelligent design explain that there used to be no land animals?
Was it because life started in the water? Or was it because the land was not fit to walk on yet? If there was an intelligent designer that created all this surely he could have designed us to be able to deal with the earth how it was at the time of creation of the earth or design the earth to be fit for us right away. Why leave it to a slow process like that?
It doesn't take much effort to alter my car to be able to traverse water. Why then did it take billions of years for us to be designed and put on this earth?
Can you explain how we were designed if we were designed? What was the process like, what are our building blocks, in what kind of environment were we created? Did this intelligent designer also create light and gravity?
Ugh intelligent design creates more questions than it answers. Seriously how can you believe in something that makes sense of so little in the world while it leaves all these other questions unanswered?
edit:
Why so vague? These similarities can however traced back through the fossil and dna record amongst other things. Why doesn't common descent enter into intelligent design? It does in the real world. Every wheel based vehicle can be said to have a common ancestor.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
fortified_concept said:
I don't think you understood what I wrote, but I'm the fucking dumb one? :lol Pray tell, what theory was proved by creating RNA?
mrkgoo said:
Even worse. It took that long to make a half-change in 0.00000003% of a person. It took that long to change a single-cell prokaryote, imagine significant change in a multicellular environment, where many pieces have to evolve accordingly. The probabilities are getting pretty low...
The minds of evolutionists...
Karma Kramer said:
Yes I do. "Intelligent design" is a uniquely American cancerous lesion.
VanMardigan said:
OMG you totally PWNT me dood. I thought you were past the junior high level of discourse.
No, there are not retards on both sides. There are delusional goofballs with medieval sensibilities on one side, and the entire developed world on the other side. Scoreboard.
Skittleguy
Ring a Bell for me
Personally, I always found that this:
Makes more sense than any other theories I've heard.
Makes more sense than any other theories I've heard.
my point was that 31,500 generations happen in a blink of an eye, simply by sheer numbers (if you're talking about a point mutation having an effect on the organism). But I didn't read the example (citrate metabolism - I remember it a while back), if it means it took that many generations sequentially - actually, now that I recall, I think I did read it, and it probably was referring to that, so I see where you're trying to come from.Bulla564 said:
Still, if you're speaking down a lineage (as opposed to sheer reproductive numbers), multicelled organisms are just as conducive to evolutionary change over time (more so even, as genetic change is quite different, hereditarily than single-celled organisms). The analogy of a human reconfiguring their entire digestive system over 600,000 years is not the same thing as bacteria evolving the ability to utilise a different catabolite. It's entirely possible that humans could do the very same. In fact, I would say it's likely, given the right envornment. Think about lactose metabolism for instance.
I'm being serious - is there really NOTHING that ID can't explain?
fortified_concept
Banned
VanMardigan said:
The theory scientists had for a long time that says that under certain conditions the fundamental elements of life could be created on earth which would start a process resulting to life as it is in its current form.
I don't understand? Can you explain what you meant by saying that "sprinkling the pixie dust by stacking the environment to get the results they want"? Are you saying that in a way they're forcing the results? Because then you have no fucking clue how science and theory proving fucking works. Are you suggesting that they're faking the results? Even more stupid. Either way that sentence sounds completely ignorant.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
gkrykewy said:
gkrykewy said:
:lol
fortified said:
That theory was not proven today son. Nor was it proven when Miller's experiment produced amino acids.
Like another poster pointed out. If you knew how evolution works you would know it's actually the other way around.Bulla564 said:
Scientists have shown that in the right conditions chemicals can form into a more complex self replicating construct. What makes you think this process couldn't have happened in a billion years by chance?
Do you have any concept of time, do you know how much time a BILLION years is? It is about 10.000.000 times more what it took for bacteria to evole into being able to eat nylon.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
You know the posts at the end of the article are great. Much more entertaining than the one here even.
- Status