80 replies to this topic

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 29 September 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

intelligence and ignorance don't exclude each other.

you are quite right and I hope you're paying attention

[questionmark]

Gummug, on 29 September 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Questionmark, here's a link which might give pause to the point you made about the spine being a bungled bit of engineering:
http://creation.com/...orter-interview
So, hopefully it can be a basis for an honest, friendly discussion...

That makes him one of 100,000 with a different opinion, the rest say its bungled. Now, what you choose to believe is your problem. We talk again about yours when you reach 70.

[None of the above]

preacherman76, on 29 September 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

There are people whos inteligence far out weighs anyone on this MB, who dont believe in the entire theory of evolution. Its not necessarily a good measuring stick to decide ones intelligence.

Name some and quantify their objection to the FACT of evolution?

[None of the above]

DieChecker, on 30 September 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

I believe there are many creationist scientists. Just not many "Young Earth" scientists.

There are many forms of creationism. Such as the idea that someone ("God" in Christianitys case) planted all life here and has been sheparding us.

Most educated and logical Christians.... and there are tons of them... do not strictly believe in the 7 days of Genesis and the Flood and the Exodus. To someone who will sit down and think there are too many contradictions and problems introduced. Most Christians I've met... and I've been Christian 14 of my 44 years... over 5 different churches... hundreds of people... are logical and usually educated people. I've met maybe 10 people who were Young Earth/ Flat Earth/ True Believers, who said playing Pokemon was a irredemable sin... out of hundreds.

Creationist scientists probably are a good percentage of all scientists. Maybe as much as 10%, but probably closer to 5%.

If you want to include the majority of Christians who see evolution as a tool of creation and the creation stoies of the bible as allegorical into your definition of 'creationist scientists' then you might be able to verify that percentage.

[Gummug]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

That makes him one of 100,000 with a different opinion, the rest say its bungled. Now, what you choose to believe is your problem. We talk again about yours when you reach 70.

When you reach 70 (if I should say) you're probably going to have problems with a lot more than just your back would be my guess. Also, people are not very good, some anyway, at taking care of themselves...many back problems are the result of a lack of exercise. πιστος ο λογος

[questionmark]

Gummug, on 30 September 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

When you reach 70 (if I should say) you're probably going to have problems with a lot more than just your back would be my guess. Also, people are not very good, some anyway, at taking care of themselves...many back problems are the result of a lack of exercise. πιστος ο λογος

No, the reason is the construction of the disk that cannot take four point pressure, as typical in an upright spine. Elephants and hippos also reach their 70s and without many known cases of dorsal injury, in humans it is up to 80%. And both use the same model as humans.

And no matter how you try to discuss that away by throwing a smoke screen: Those are facts. Trying some Greek does not take it away either.

[Gummug]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

No, the reason is the construction of the disk that cannot take four point pressure, as typical in an upright spine. Elephants and hippos also reach their 70s and without many known cases of dorsal injury, in humans it is up to 80%. And both use the same model as humans.

And no matter how you try to discuss that away by throwing a smoke screen: Those are facts. Trying some Greek does not take it away either.

OK this is not my area of expertise so I'll have to consult a friend of mine who is a chiropractor, and him I would trust. As far as the Greek, well it was worth a shot. πιστος ο λογος και πασης αποδοξης αξιος

[HavocWing]

Michelle, on 29 September 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Some people on UM are as predictable as FOX news they hate so much.

I used to like FOX news, when they actually showed the news.  Now all it is Obama bashing, 24/7, nothing but pure hate.  I don't care if it is Obama, George Bush, republican or democrat.  To sit there and watch that channel you would have to have some sort of hate disorder.

[Myles]

You guys let Hutton hi-jack another thread.  Shame on you.

I agree that the title should be "western" not "American".    However if it is true as it reads, this is a good thing.

[Urisk]

Gummug, on 29 September 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I have to leave pretty soon to go watch a movie with my friend, but I'll leave you with one parting thought: Consider a single celled organism, which if my understanding of evolution is correct, is one of the first things that evolved. Wouldn't you agree that the cytoplasm cannot exist without a membrane, and also that the cell membrane would be useless without  cytoplasm inside? OK, so for a functioning cell to exist, the membrane and the cytoplasm would have to have come into existence together at the same time. What are the chances of that happening without intelligence guidance? I'd say about the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and creating a Mercedes Benz...in other words, zilch. I'll have to take up this again tomorrow.

Chances are there were plenty that occurred, but obviously it's going to be the one that "worked" that's going to survive. There's is an even greater chance, however, that both didn't just "come into existence", as if in the blink of an eye.

[Br Cornelius]

Urisk, on 01 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Chances are there were plenty that occurred, but obviously it's going to be the one that "worked" that's going to survive. There's is an even greater chance, however, that both didn't just "come into existence", as if in the blink of an eye.

Let us not forget that the time period in which to perfect such a happy accident was billions of years - which would have allowed for literally trillions of failures. It only takes one of those accidents to produce the functional cell wall+cytoplasm complex. Let us not also forgot that many other parallel series of accidental conjunctions were going on to build the elements needed to make the Cell. All of this is on top of the fact that we know for a fact that the raw building blocks of amino acids spontaneously form all the time in almost every corner of space and even in deep space itself.

In the grand scheme of things its more difficult to believe that the cell wouldn't have happened. The need for a creator represents a failure of personal imagination.

Br Cornelius

[Gummug]

Urisk, on 01 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Chances are there were plenty that occurred, but obviously it's going to be the one that "worked" that's going to survive. There's is an even greater chance, however, that both didn't just "come into existence", as if in the blink of an eye.

Come to think of it another thing I just thought of is, if you assume that the whole cytoplasm of the cell (with the mitochondria, and nucleus, etc.) could not survive, that is could not replicate itself without a cell membrane (which I don't think it could because if you prick a cell with a micro-sized needle the cytoplasm leaks out, is my understanding) it wouldn't be a matter of just the cell wall and cell "innards" coming together at the same time, the mitochondria and cytoplasm and nucleus and all the other components of the cell would also have to come together at the same time, because the cell wouldn't be functional without all its parts. What are the chances of that?
And about building blocks of life occurring spontaneously, imo the distance between a building block and a complete cell is like the difference between a nut and/or bolt and a completed car or jet plane. Probably it is even greater. Guys, if we continue this we might have to find or start another thread because otherwise this is known as hijacking a thread....

Edited by Gummug, 01 October 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Gummug]

At least I think it would be because it seems like this would fall more into the category of philosophy, or arguably, religion.

[Br Cornelius]

Gummug, on 01 October 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Come to think of it another thing I just thought of is, if you assume that the whole cytoplasm of the cell (with the mitochondria, and nucleus, etc.) could not survive, that is could not replicate itself without a cell membrane (which I don't think it could because if you prick a cell with a micro-sized needle the cytoplasm leaks out, is my understanding) it wouldn't be a matter of just the cell wall and cell "innards" coming together at the same time, the mitochondria and cytoplasm and nucleus and all the other components of the cell would also have to come together at the same time, because the cell wouldn't be functional without all its parts. What are the chances of that?
And about building blocks of life occurring spontaneously, imo the distance between a building block and a complete cell is like the difference between a nut and/or bolt and a completed car or jet plane. Probably it is even greater. Guys, if we continue this we might have to find or start another thread because otherwise this is known as hijacking a thread....

You assume that the primitive cell was fundamentally the same as the present cell. That is a wild assumption as there are a long series of evolutionary steps embodied within the modern cell which means it would be radically different to the first cells. The modern cell is highly adapted to live within a competitive living environment - the primitive cell would have had entirely different none living environmental pressures. It is highly likely that the cell membrane evolved completely seperately to RNA or DNA and it was adopted/hi-jacked by the later as a means of achieving better homoeostasis. The move from   prokaryotes to eukaryotes represents multiple evolutionary steps within themselves. Again it is a lack of imagination which doesn't allow you to imagine the multiple steps from simple proteins to functional cells.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 October 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Wookietim]

I might point out that in a universe of billions of galaxies with trillions of planets in each one and working on trillions of random combinations for billions of years... I'd say in that universe the chance of life developing like that is pretty darn good.