17 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly you really are obtuse sometimes, it doesn't matter how many times you fabricate what previous posters say..... it won't make it so.
It does not matter what the "father" of ID said, any more than it would
matter what Darwin said if he accepted or rejected God, his views about
God do not come into play, either the questions are real and valid that
ID asks or they are not, if they are valid the "person" you want to rip
is just another guy with a point of view. Pull your head out and stick to
the topic and quick attempting to make a person the topic not the
subject.
Kelly
Have another go at reading my previous post, it clearly says I am not rejecting ID because of the person!!!!
"Was I rejecting ID purely on the basis of its founder or the fact that the guy is a "born again christian" ?? No, I did not offer any reason why we should turn against ID, I merely indicated why ID is a dressed up version of creationism i.e religious"
I then continued to give my reasons for rejecting ID. Is that clear or are you really that ignorant of basic language concepts.
There is clear evidence for ID = religion, so pull your head back in again KJ.
Seems like your back for another attempt at your drivel, mis-direction, pseudo answers and vagueness again.
17 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's obviously a very complex explanation, much more than I'm prepared to type here...... so it will require some reading on your part KJ if you are truely interested in learning something.
When we (people) build something very complex such as an airplane
or a CPU there are several independent systems and parts that work
in unison to do things that are required for the entire system to
function properly, The thing I'd like to see is you show me how the
something like the circulatory system could arise with all the
interdependences require ...[text shortened]... look at ID again and
see if it is any different than anything else people come up with.
Kelly
This is a really early paper on the subject, some of the language is a little outdated and you will see how humans were thought of as "the pinnacle of evolution" at this time, but don't use this as an excuse to ignore the valid information within the paper. It gives a really good overview of the progression of circulatory systems from the oldest taxa to the most recent. Remember that a circulatory system is nothing more than a system that effectively delivers nutrients to a required cell. In this case the skin, cell membranes, basic fluid chambers etc all act as a circulatory system. The heart is something that came much later.
So try:
The Evolution of the Circulatory Organs
Author(s): W. C. Cahall
Source: The American Naturalist, Vol. 25, No. 291, (Mar., 1891), pp. 237-247
Then if you are truely interested and want to see how modern science has built on this knowledge try reading the following:
The Evolution of Organ Systems
by Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa
If you genuinely seek an answer to how the circulatory system evolved, then these will satisfy your answers in depth. Unfortunately, the subject is vast and does require this level of committment to understand how it is possible.
I'm sure you will come back with some vague statement, smart remark or you will refuse to even read the short paper. But thats you all over KJ, always taking the short cut to thinking.
Will this knowledge threaten the values you hold in life? Yes, it will show how all organs evolved, creation is not necessary, but I'm sure you will make an excuse not to read and learn.
This is often the problem with most creationists, their opinions are based upon only the smallest amount of knowledge.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by timebombtedThat's all well and good and a good post but people like KJ are not interested in science, only in the ability to tear science apart, which is not possible in a scientific way, only 'nyah nyah nyah, I have a book that says different'. That is the only argument this type will EVER be able to come up with for the simple fact they cannot accept anything that contradicts their bible.
It's obviously a very complex explanation, much more than I'm prepared to type here...... so it will require some reading on your part KJ if you are truely interested in learning something.
This is a really early paper on the subject, some of the language is a little outdated and you will see how humans were thought of as "the pinnacle of evolution" a ...[text shortened]... h most creationists, their opinions are based upon only the smallest amount of knowledge.
17 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI totally agree with you, but as a scientist I always like to try and explain to the best of my knowledge (I'm sure you are the same). I have all the time in the world for anyone who is genuinely willing to learn, questioning evidence is good and healthy for science....... but being obtuse does test my patience.
That's all well and good and a good post but people like KJ are not interested in science, only in the ability to tear science apart, which is not possible in a scientific way, only 'nyah nyah nyah, I have a book that says different'. That is the only argument this type will EVER be able to come up with for the simple fact they cannot accept anything that contradicts their bible.
I'm sure there is no amount of evidence to ever make those who have faith in god, believe that life does not need a creator.
Good day :0)
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedHow can we just say, you go your way and I'll go mine? The problem becomes more than moot if the religous right has so much political clout that it interferes with real science. They clearly have no interest in science, only tearing down what has been painstakingly learned over centuries and now they try to force their way into science classrooms to feed their propaganda to malleable children who will, some anyway, buy their crooked stories hook line and sinker and boing, another good mind lost. That's the real travesty of the situation. Lost minds.
I totally agree with you, but as a scientist I always like to try and explain to the best of my knowledge (I'm sure you are the same). I have all the time in the world for anyone who is genuinely willing to learn, questioning evidence is good and healthy for science....... but being obtuse does test my patience.
I'm sure there is no amount of evidence ...[text shortened]... r make those who have faith in god, believe that life does not need a creator.
Good day :0)
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseReligion results in "lost minds". I couldn't agree more, good post :0)
How can we just say, you go your way and I'll go mine? The problem becomes more than moot if the religous right has so much political clout that it interferes with real science. They clearly have no interest in science, only tearing down what has been painstakingly learned over centuries and now they try to force their way into science classrooms to feed th ...[text shortened]... nker and boing, another good mind lost. That's the real travesty of the situation. Lost minds.
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseif humanity divided into rational and religious tribes, i wonder which would be more successful in evolutionary terms. i guess it would depend how you measure success. a fertile plot for a work of fiction?
How can we just say, you go your way and I'll go mine? The problem becomes more than moot if the religous right has so much political clout that it interferes with real science. They clearly have no interest in science, only tearing down what has been painstakingly learned over centuries and now they try to force their way into science classrooms to feed th ...[text shortened]... nker and boing, another good mind lost. That's the real travesty of the situation. Lost minds.
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Why teach religion in science class?
Why teach science in religion class?
The two are on opposite sides of a border.
When the religious teacher asked a boy: "What has a trunk and sturdy legs and large ears?" the boy answered: "I would answer 'an elephant', but since it is you who's asking I answer 'Jesus'!" 😀
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are good at mind reading and understand what I am and I am
That's all well and good and a good post but people like KJ are not interested in science, only in the ability to tear science apart, which is not possible in a scientific way, only 'nyah nyah nyah, I have a book that says different'. That is the only argument this type will EVER be able to come up with for the simple fact they cannot accept anything that contradicts their bible.
not interested in doing? You don't have a clue, you simply spend
more time worrying about 'motives' than the questions.
Kelly
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoLike I said, God did it and it takes billions of years both do one thing,
How exactly does what I stated help you case in any way, whatsoever.?
it takes it out of the here and now with respect to proof. You telling
me it takes billions of years isn't good enough as I stated before,
there are billions of people who say they have had experiences with
God too. I will ask you, can you show me several independent
systems forming from raw material without direction from someone or
something building it all so that parts of it are all working together
with balance and direction like we see in living systems, and do it
today instead of just telling me it occurred over billions of years?
I'd like to see that shown today in the here and now, otherwise you
have the atheist equivalent to "God did it" as the support for your
belief system.
Kelly
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayHow is Billions of years the same as saying "god did it". The Earth is billions of years old and life has been evolving on it for billions of years. The earth being billions of years old isn't invoking any kind of imaginary friend to solve a problem. It is simply putting a dimensional aspect on evolution.
Like I said, God did it and it takes billions of years both do one thing,
it takes it out of the here and now with respect to proof. You telling
me it takes billions of years isn't good enough as I stated before,
there are billions of people who say they have had experiences with
God too. I will ask you, can you show me several independent
systems form ...[text shortened]...
have the atheist equivalent to "God did it" as the support for your
belief system.
Kelly
How could you do it today, that's like saying I want you to build a mountain, they take millions of years too, but I don't want it to take any time I simply want it all to occur in the "here and now" as you put it.
Tell me KJ and if you evade the question we are done here, I will not try and explain it again. It's a simple one too. What Age do you believe the earth to be?
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoIt does not matter if the earth is trillions of years old and you tell me
How is Billions of years the same as saying "god did it". The Earth is billions of years old and life has been evolving on it for billions of years. The earth being billions of years old isn't invoking any kind of imaginary friend to solve a problem. It is simply putting a dimensional aspect on evolution.
How could you do it today, that's like saying I wan ...[text shortened]... ry and explain it again. It's a simple one too. What Age do you believe the earth to be?
that it takes billions of years to do! The point is if it cannot be done,
it does not matter how much time you have NOT TO BE ABLE to do it.
Kelly
18 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThen as long as you accept.
It does not matter if the earth is trillions of years old and you tell me
that it takes billions of years to do! The point is if it cannot be done,
it does not matter how much time you have NOT TO BE ABLE to do it.
Kelly
- The earth is over 4 Billion years old
- Living organisms can change slightly from generation to generation
- Even The longest lived animals rarely have ages over 75 years.
The how many generations of this organism have there been in the last billion years, tiny changes = small increments, separate populations will increment differently.... Speciation.....
This is super simplified to make the point that the time needed to evolve a complex system is essential to the understating of evolution.
Oh and your evading again. Answer me how old do you think the earth is? I beginning to think you don't accept 4.5 billion..... Maybe somewhere around 10,000? If so, How was this age acquired?
18 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are one of the millions who don't have a real interest in science, only in bending the will of people to match your dogma.
It does not matter if the earth is trillions of years old and you tell me
that it takes billions of years to do! The point is if it cannot be done,
it does not matter how much time you have NOT TO BE ABLE to do it.
Kelly
So why do you come here with specious arguments, putting up straw men left and right and making statements as if they were fact. You are not interested in real debate, only in the attempt to force hundreds of years of real science out the window to have us believe in fairy god mothers who run every atom in the universe. THAT is pathetic.