Originally posted by menace71It's not the lack of transitional species in the fossil record, it's the lack of species. If you look at the world there are a vast number of things that simply aren't there in the fossil record as often as they should be. Creatures lacking hard parts and non-woody plants for example. This becomes more noticeable for land dwelling species. The problem is that fossilisation is an incredibly unlikely thing to happen and requires very specific conditions for even the hard bits to be preserved. Add in other critters consuming soft bits, bacteria destroying even some of the hardest bits via decay and hard parts being dissolved by adverse conditions and you have to wonder how anything gets fossilised at all. To make matters worse, it is actually impossible because the process of turning organic matter to rock takes longer than 6 000 years.
I believe anyone who is seeking truth and tries there best to look at evidence and test theory and keep as unbiased as possible can make a good scientist. Every model of origins has its flaws. Creationist in the YEC camp have to contend with the apparent age of the universe and evolutionist have to deal with issues too like where are all of the transitiona ...[text shortened]... n the fossil record ? I think it's looking at a puzzle and trying to figure it out.
Manny
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNonsense! Organic chemists can understand just fine how organic chemicals can come from inorganic chemicals ( inorganic chemicals, for historical reasons, include carbides, carbonates CO CO2 and cyanides ). In fact, they often produce such organic chemicals from inorganic chemicals in the lab.
Neither can anyone else. 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsTalk about sticking your foot in your mouth. The main problem here is you don't know the difference between organic and inorganic molecules. BTW, amino acids (needed for life on Earth) has been found in interstellar space so tell us again how nobody else can figure out organic chemicals.
Neither can anyone else. 😏
Originally posted by sonhouseYes you do get organic molecules in space, i studied that...
Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth. The main problem here is you don't know the difference between organic and inorganic molecules. BTW, amino acids (needed for life on Earth) has been found in interstellar space so tell us again how nobody else can figure out organic chemicals.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not saying they need religion, just more morality. The other thread I set up on fritz haber is about science with no morals.. its a very scairy thing , I said in that a science degree with no foundation in ethics is like a porsche 911 with no driving license and i stick to that....
not meaning to offend, but your post didn't have a shred of logic or coherence.
and i bet the atheists (and in fact so do i) take offence that the "faithless" chemical industry needs spirituality to do the right thing. spirituality is a way of life. it doesn't make one squeaky clean all by itself.
12 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
I am not saying they need religion, just more morality. The other thread I set up on fritz haber is about science with no morals.. its a very scairy thing , I said in that a science degree with no foundation in ethics is like a porsche 911 with no driving license and i stick to that....
I am not saying they need religion, just more morality.
Which ones? -does this include, say, those who are trying to find a cure to a ghastly disease? And, given your general ignorance of what much of science is really about, how would you know that most scientists living today need “more morality”? Have you got any evidence that, mysteriously, morality is strangely lacking in most scientists living today? (note that cherry picking the very few that lack morality is not 'evidence' of this -the operative word here in that question is 'most'😉. Have you ever been a scientist yourself? or worked along side scientists so that you personally observed with your own eyes and ears how damn immoral they all are!? 😛
EXACTLY what is it that defines a scientist that you think would make most of them likely to lack morality? -I would think probably most of them would have more morality than you do for Morality based on and dependent on theism isn't true morality at all.
The other thread I set up on fritz haber is about science with no morals.. its a very scairy thing , I said in that a science degree with no foundation in ethics is like a porsche 911 with no driving license and i stick to that....
Really? OK, in that case, using the same logic, since it is also a historical fact that fritz haber converted to Christianity, we can have:
“fritz haber is about Christianity with no morals. Its a very scary thing , Conversion to Christianity with no foundation in ethics is like a porsche 911 with no driving license and i stick to that....”
P.S. “fritz haber” above can be replaced with “The Nazis” because both were Christians + even IF fritz haber was 'evil' (which I do not think would be a fair description of him), unlike with the Nazis during WW2, I do not simplistically think that fritz haber was all-evil since he did good things which you seem to completely ignore.
4 edits
humy;
' Have you ever been a scientist yourself? or worked along side scientists so that you personally observed with your own eyes and ears how damn immoral they all are!? '
OK maybe I'm wrong and you can educate me, what do you think of the post below? To me that shows science... particularly the application of chemical knowledge, industry, not academia, is still quite flippant. What would you say?
'a recent case highlights the kind of attitudes I'm on about. People got paranoid about buying parabens, enough for cosmetics companies to market 'paraben free' products, allegedly they can mimic eastrogen, there is a mix commonly used in cosmetics and one was recently found to be risky in that way. It got into the press and people stopped buying them. But.... they replace parabens with sodium benzoate, also used as a food preservative. I think this is a marketing trick that if people see a chemical they have seen in food (not saying all care but enough do) they think it must be ok. But sodium benzoate was pulled from soft drinks for being carcinogenic, it turns into benzene which is toxic in very low doses. I don't want to spread net rubbish i do buy shower gel with it in. But the cosmetics companies vigorously oppose attempts by the EU to test there chemicals for being carcinogenic... sodium benzoate could well be worse then paraben and they don't want any tests to find out...'
5 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
humy;
' Have you ever been a scientist yourself? or worked along side scientists so that you personally observed with your own eyes and ears how damn immoral they all are!? '
OK maybe I'm wrong and you can educate me, what do you think of the post below? To me that shows science... particularly the application of chemical knowledge, industry, not academi enzoate could well be worse then paraben and they don't want any tests to find out...'
humy;
' Have you ever been a scientist yourself? or worked along side scientists so that you personally observed with your own eyes and ears how damn immoral they all are!? '
No and no and I guess you haven't either so why do you think most lack morality?
To me that shows science... particularly the application of chemical knowledge, industry, not academia, is still quite flippant.
what has any of that got to do with science? It is completely irrelevant to science!
You keep showing the same total confusion here over and over again: how does “the application of chemical knowledge, industry,” equate with “science”?
Definition of science:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“...
sci·ence
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
...”
Do you see any mention of 'industry' or the 'application' of chemical knowledge in the above?
Science is NOT 'industry' or the 'application' of chemical knowledge but knowledge gained through scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
“...
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
...”
-as you should clearly see from the above, science is not about industry nor anything to do with the use of food additives nor cosmetics nor the use of poison gas -in each case the application of science can be involved but, and this is where you are confused, the application of science is not the actual science itself -the two being wildly differing things.
How would a rational method of gaining knowledge (i.e. scientific method) need 'morality'? the responsible use of the resulting knowledge may often require morality but the rational method of gaining knowledge (i.e. scientific method) still does not for you generally cannot do harm merely by gaining knowledge via scientific method. Example; gaining knowledge by looking through a telescope at the stars -how could someone do harm by doing that and thus why would someone need morality to do that? To blame science for its misuse is like blaming astronomy for some idiot smashing a telescope over someones head.
Don't get to carried away. I have met chemists, from my degree. about 1 in 5 i would class as evil, definately lacking morals, and there were ones who were so caught up in it they were nasty if you distracted them, i have sympathy for them.
Having studied chemistry, seen behind the scenes, it was my conclusion not to touch any synthetic chemical / drug with a barge pole unless necersary, it didn't boost my faith in them it shattered it. Now for me having also spent 8 years in a bank, I can say the bankers were more ethical, and having scene what they do i have no worries with my bank account. But chemists I have little faith in.
So yes I have met chemists. Think about sheldon in the big bang, immagine him on an evil day, scientists can be trouble...
7 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisThere is just so much wrong with that;
Don't get to carried away. I have met chemists, from my degree. about 1 in 5 i would class as evil, definately lacking morals, and there were ones who were so caught up in it they were nasty if you distracted them, i have sympathy for them.
Having studied chemistry, seen behind the scenes, it was my conclusion not to touch any synthetic chemical / drug w Think about Sheldon in the big bang, immagine him on an evil day, scientists can be trouble...
In what way were the "1 in 5" chemists you met were 'evil' and 'lacking in morals'?
and how do you KNOW they were evil? did they they do something wrong? if so, exactly what? I mean, was it they said they were atheists? or did you see them make chemical weapons? -or what exactly?
What was your degree in exactly? was it chemistry? Do you claim to have a science degree and, if so, in exactly what area of science?
and there were ones who were so caught up in it they were nasty if you distracted them,
"caught up in" what exactly? I mean, “distracted” them from what exactly? -doing their degree? Doing the course work? If not, what?
In what way were they “nasty” to you when you 'distracted' them? Exactly what did they say or do to be “nasty” and in what way did you 'distract' them?
Having studied chemistry, seen behind the scenes
exactly were is “behind the scenes” that you saw? -the lab? The university campus?
scientists can be trouble...
The Christian Nazis can be trouble -including the few that were scientists but mainly the ones that were not because most were not. Fortunately, unlike dangerous religious nuts, Christian Nazi scientists are extremely rare these days! Don't understand your hatred of scientists in general. Don't understand why you pick on them in particular and not the people that REALLY authorise the atrocities such as the murder of millions i.e. cruel politicians, cruel dictators, religious extremists and terrorists. It would make a bit more sense if your prejudice was at least narrowed to just the Christian scientists for historically they have generally been the ones that have shown to sometimes to have a cruel streak -a few either worked for the Nazis or were Nazis.
1 edit
I know they were evil because they liked the lewes bonfire and anyone who does is evil 🙂
But seriously a few of them were maliciously nasty and considered themselves geniuses, they might have been but i would not trust them with my safety ever.
You also seem to like the idea nazis were christian or vice versa, i wish i could shatter that for you. It seems to offend your world viewn the fact they were not christian in the slightest but had plenty of good scientists.
Originally posted by e4chris
I know they were evil because they liked the lewes bonfire and anyone who does is evil 🙂
But seriously a few of them were maliciously nasty and considered themselves geniuses, they might have been but i would not trust them with my safety ever.
You also seem to like the idea nazis were christian or vice versa, i wish i could shatter that for you. It s ...[text shortened]... world viewn the fact they were not christian in the slightest but had plenty of good scientists.
You also seem to like the idea nazis were christian or vice versa,
No, I don't like it at all. Its just a historical fact that I have time and time again shown you links proving that it is such.
can you show any links (other than pure creationist propaganda ones) that they were all atheists? or NOT Christians? just try and find ANY actual historical reference of the Nazis ever being mainly or entirely NOT Christian.... go on, if you don't believe me, just TRY it! Why don't you? just humor me and TRY it!
But seriously a few of them were maliciously nasty and considered themselves geniuses, they might have been but i would not trust them with my safety ever.
Now that doesn't make much sense does it? In what way were they “maliciously nasty”? Was it because that they “considered themselves geniuses”? If so, you then you say “ they might have been” and if they were then it would hardly be “maliciously nasty” for them to say so -right? And what is it with the “ i would not trust them with my safety ever”? -have they shown that their understanding of chemistry was so seriously flawed?
6 edits
I tried.... then i thought nah, they were not christians at all, given another 10 years they would be building pyramids n sacfrificing goats... a lot of nazi thinkers were big on hinduism not christianity. And there are books / references to back that up - Savitri Devi... there's your reference.
5 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
I tried.... then i thought nah, they were not christians at all, given another 10 years they would be building pyramids n sacfrificing goats... a lot of nazi thinkers were big on hinduism not christianity. And there are books / references to back that up - Savitri Devi... there's your reference.
a lot of nazi thinkers were big on hinduism not christianity
-and most were Christians and not into Hinduism. Why should I care if 'many' were into Hinduism? are you now attempting to shift the blame to the Hindus? The fact would still remain that most Nazis were Christian. Well, at least you didn't say here they were all atheists and that's a very small start I suppose.
Have you tried looking up the historical records (and not propaganda sites) for yourself yet to verify your belief that the Nazis were NOT mainly Christians? -please TRY IT RIGHT NOW if you haven't! If you have tried it, please either show me a link that shows they were NOT mainly Christians or tell me they were mainly Christians....
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0835Hitler.php
"...
all the Nazi leaders were born, baptized, and raised Christian, mainly in authoritarian, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were not valued. Catholic Nazis, besides Hitler, included Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy. Protestants had given the Nazi party its main backing leading up to 1933. Evangelical youth was especially pro-Nazi. 90 percent of Protestant university theologians supported the Nazis. Christians were Nazis and took part in Nazi atrocities. Any who turned to outright criticism of fascism made their last appeals from the death cell.
..."
1 edit
now you are being obstinate, I have given you your Hindu link to look up, you have a really , really warped and wrong view of christianity if you link it to the nazis. You are confusing the fact that germany was a christian country, like the whole of Europe, so all nazis come from a christian background, how in hell was invading poland christian, please explain?
I'm not trying to demonise science, not at all, but when you mix it with fascism as the nazis did its terrible.