Science Professors Blast Ouster At Tea

[3XNTGRAD]

eulesseagle:

Nothing I can say or show you will convince you if your mind is already made up. I'm sure someone will try to say I'm avoiding something by not responding point by point to your post, but I don't think I'd be covering any ground that I haven't already discussed in my previous posts by doing that.

Rather than try to do so, I just want to make one very specific comment about a main point of your post.

The word "theory" in the common usage can mean a guess or estimate. The word for a guess (or more precisely, a potential answer to a stated problem) in science is a hypothesis.

In the scientific sense, a theory is a strongly-supported scientific idea. I can't just throw out any idea in science and call that a theory (which is, by the way, what the intelligent design people try to do). It must start as a hypothesis that is tested, refined, retested and then must have a weight of evidence behind it before it gains the status of "Theory" through the acceptance of that body of knowledge in the scientific community.

A theory in science is as good as it gets.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Bacteria is developing resistance to weaker forms of penicillin. A good question to ask is why did it develop this resistance and also how?

---You missed it... The penicillin or whatever drug will wipe out maybe 99% of the bacteria but 1% survives and becomes the new common bacteria and resists the original drug as expected since future version are descendants of this tough 1% that wasn't killed....... thus the old drug becomes nearly worthless and a new drug is needed. I hope you did not major in any area of science, mathematics, or engineering.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Re Theory: There sure a lot of modern electronic devices that exist because of various THEORIES of electricity...... I will bet that you use them and don't worry about the "theories" behind them. I can't nor can anyone else really see electrons, protons, and atomic particles we but use them assuming they are true and use them to make our modern world. Just because we believe electons, protons, and antimatter, etc. exists doesn't mean we doubt the existence of God.... although some think we do. We have "faith" that these things exist and faith that God does as well.

Edited December 16, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTFan23]

---You missed it... The penicillin or whatever drug will wipe out maybe 99% of the bacteria but 1% survives and becomes the new common bacteria and resists the original drug as expected since future version are descendants of this tough 1% that wasn't killed....... thus the old drug becomes nearly worthless and a new drug is needed. I hope you did not major in any area of science, mathematics, or engineering.

I'm a computer programmer, not a scientist. I intentionally avoided the "real" sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) at all costs. If you want to talk about the advantages/disadvantages of Net Neutrality and how it will impact our economy in the future, I'd be happy to start a new thread.

I'm glad you posted a response. This, to me at least, looks like evolution, where the survivors of a generation change slightly so future generations can survive. You gave a how it developed this resistance, now the better question is why.

[emmitt01]

I think the most telling difference between the two side is this. If you tell a Creationist that the root of their idea, God, is wrong they will fight you tooth and nail and become frustrated...you have questioned their faith. They have no choice but to do so, without faith their position can offer no explanation. If you tell an evolutionist that the root ideals of their theory are false they too will disagree vehemently...but they will open the door to you to show them the error of their ways. They can welcome changes, caveats, or complete reworkings of their ideas.

[Travis]

Don't kid yourself. It's easy to be convinced toward one conclusion when you already have a faith-based bias towards one of the conclusions going into your examination.

You are right on with that statement. I would say that to the evolutionist as well since both require the same amount of trust (faith) that it is true. I think many people on both sides of the coin come into it with a limited, bias approach.

Faith (in the religous sense) doesn't explain it all... neither does science. They need each other to answer all questions.

[Travis]

I think the most telling difference between the two side is this. If you tell a Creationist that the root of their idea, God, is wrong they will fight you tooth and nail and become frustrated...you have questioned their faith. They have no choice but to do so, without faith their position can offer no explanation. If you tell an evolutionist that the root ideals of their theory are false they too will disagree vehemently...but they will open the door to you to show them the error of their ways. They can welcome changes, caveats, or complete reworkings of their ideas.

You are right... for the most part on those with faith in God. I don't think you are right so much on the scientist. I think you have people in both camps.... those who are prideful and stubborn even inthe face of reason. And those that are humble and willing to admit they are incorrect. It isn't predominantly in more than one than the other... it is predominatly in both.

[UNTflyer]

[scientists] can welcome changes, caveats, or complete reworkings of their ideas.

Try that with a global warming nut.

[eulesseagle]

3xntgrad--

I will have to agree with you on your statement. I admire anyone who can state a point, like yours, and support it. However, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic because I know there is no way that I can change your views on this subject and visa versa. I do wish you the best of luck with any and all debates with your peers. One day we will find out for sure. As Agent Mulden (on X-Files) once said, "The truth is out there."

as always best regards.

ee

[FirefightnRick]

No--as you might be able to guess from my posts, I am a Gospel preacher. I am not sure what you are getting at, but I have examined fairly closely the cases for either side, and have been convinced the evidence favors design.

No sir, I didn't guess that but glad you said so. I was just curious and that is all. I have greatly appreciated your insight into the discussion as well and meant no offense whatsoever. I have enjoyed both sides to the discussion.

Good stuff.

Rick

[3XNTGRAD]

3xntgrad--

I will have to agree with you on your statement. I admire anyone who can state a point, like yours, and support it. However, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic because I know there is no way that I can change your views on this subject and visa versa. I do wish you the best of luck with any and all debates with your peers. One day we will find out for sure. As Agent Mulden (on X-Files) once said, "The truth is out there."

as always best regards.

ee

At least we can agree to disagree

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I see no conflict between science and belief in God... Anyone who has taken a lot of science classes understands the complexitives of the universe and realizes it is far too complex for man to fully understand. The conflict comes when organized religions come up with odd ideas they want to believe is true (the world is flat for example by the Pope or that the world is only 10,000 old or whatever) and declare that those who doesn't believe as they do are somehow linked to the devil (as the New England Puritans who thought they were justified in murdering people as do many today) .

---More people have been killed in the name of religion beliefs than for any other reason.. The Cathlolic and various Protestants fought for several centuries in Europe. Even WWII had religious overtones as Hilter tried to eliminate the Jews and many Europeans "Christians" blamed the Jews for the crucifixian. Thousand if not millions were killed during the Crusades and today even the religious extremists wanted us to invade Iraq to punished the Islamics even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Somehow killing people for religious reasons seems totally wrong.

---Most people of science have no trouble with religion... just with some of the nutty religious leaders that try to make up their "own rules". After all, the day I graduated from high school the blacks in my class, including the good student and athlete that sat behind me in math class was not not allowed to enroll at Baylor, SMU, TCU, or even the Baptist supported college in my home town... Many ministers and colleges could even come with with scriptures that justified their actions.... Many (not all) are just as nutty today. Just because a person is a minister just not mean they get any more "devine" revelations that the rest of us.

Why am I not at church this morning...? my wife is ill.

Edited December 16, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulesseagle]

screamingeagle66-

i really do not see any conflict between science and the belief in God. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and personal belief systems. The Puritians certainly had their beliefs as well as other religions since time. You are correct in that many countries have gone to war over religion, thoughout time, and personally i do not believe you will have any arguments on that point either.

However, today the world is faced with a greater danger religiously. That is the conflict between Islam and Christianity. Islam is overt enough to state that their intentions are to convert the world to Islam through violence as they are currently doing and have done thoughout their inception and have certainly tried only to be turned back through the Crusades in the Middle East, by invasion through Africa and up through Spain and stopped outside of Paris by Martel, stopped by the Austrians outside of Vienna about a couple hundred years later, Pershing fought Islamic insugents in the Phillipines during the Spanish American War (he incidently told his troops to wrap Islamic dead in pig skins), look at the Islamic stuggles to overtake various countries in current day Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe and in the United States. Some of this is done through the courts by trying to change laws in various countries and some by overt acts of violence such as 9-11, the riots in Paris, the killings in Belgium and the usual "round up of the usual suspects (the quote form Casablanca) in Germany, France and now even in the United States, Canada and Austrailia.

I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe....if they want to worship God that is excellent with me, if they want to worship the sun, moon and stars that is ok with me, if they want to worship nothing at all that is fine with me. There will always be some form of missionary outreach by all these groups to convert and subsequentially cause conflict.

The current use of violence, i.e., killing others because you refuse to submit to their doctrine is abhorrent as you have stated and I agree. This is what the world is currently facing and will until the perpetrators are subdued. Islam says they are a religion of peace yet they are ready to kill in the name of their religion today and the free world must be ready and able to counter this threat. Yes, another religious war. Mark Gabriel, Ph.D. wrote a provocative book called, Islam and Terrorism...What the Quran really teaches about Christianity, violence and the goals of the Islamic jihad. Good reading.

Edited December 16, 2007 by eulesseagle

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I pretty much agree with your last comments. But there is a serious flaw. I also recognize that just because part of them want to kill us off, most do not. You can't justify attacking one Islamic country because another does something wrong. This often the problem.. In Northern Ireland if a Catholic or Protestant did something to the opposite gruop that did not justify attempting the kill the others.......but that is what was happening. Our invading a Islamic country just because it is Islamic is no reason to invade. We become as bad as the Islamic extremists then.

---We have a right to defend ourselves and even go after people such as Ben Laden but not to invade and punish countries just they may have different religious beliefs. That would put us back into the religious wars of the late middle ages again. Keep religious beliefs and government separate. When mixed, it causes all sorts of irrational wars. The countries of the world understood us going into Afganistan.... they didn't Iraq.... besides Sadden was not a Islamic crazy at all, he was a thug as was Stalin but not as bad even..... he had no modern weapons and no capability to manufacture them after the Gulf War and really cause problems as Stalin did.

[Censored by Laurie]

I really want to weigh in on this topic, however the combination of Plumm-length posts and my ADD will make it impossible.

JayDub and Adler...keep up the great work on this post.

[mad dog]

Actually a pretty good thread. Oh how I wish for this kind of civility in the football forums...

[UNTflyer]

Does the theory of Intelligent Design allow for the possibility of space aliens fabricating life across the universe? Cause that would be cool.

[Mean Green 93-98]

First don't even start to claim that I am claiming than man came from a monkey...I am not....... And don't claim I am some Godless pagan... I am not.

----Evolution absolutely exists... Some of it has been controlled.... the Aggie Agriculture department among many others (also Tech and many in other colleges elsewhere) changes plants all the time... The corn we produce today bears little resemblance to the original corn plant that the Indians had when Europe began to settle in America. Agricultural scientists have controlled many plants such as wheat so that 99% of the plants are the same height so that they can be easier harvested. at one time it was taller with a wider variety of heights. Cotton plants today look a great deal different than they did 100 years ago.... Now they are shorter plants with "less plant" and more "cotton". Granted this is not "natural" evolution but never less it is a type of evolution. Viruses change constantly so that we are able to eliminate one a different appears (evolves) . Change of "germs" appear as one disease is nearly wiped out another similar version appears. There are varieties of dogs now that never existed several years ago. Again the result of controled breeding (evolution of a sort).. Because of these germ and virus changes new medicines must be developed to fight the "nearly same" disease...

--I suppose some will claim changing plants and animals isn't evolution...well if it isn't, what is it?? Some is natural change (viruses for example) some isn't.... new animals appear (somewhat, especially domestic animals) and many have disappeared. Evolution in general is not a theory... the evolution of man somewhat is..... but we have changed somewhat as well, in size, heigth, and appearance some..[ examine bodies in tombs 100's of years old and military records ( and uniforms) of soldiers through the years regarding size of men.

There is a difference between limited change within kinds and macrovolution between species. When someone provides evidence of a non-human being giving birth to a human being, evolution will have a case.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Don't kid yourself. It's easy to be convinced toward one conclusion when you already have a faith-based bias towards one of the conclusions going into your examination.

You seem to think you know a lot about me personally. Actually, when I was 17-18 years old, I had completely abandoned any belief in a Creator. I had come to realize through my 13 years of public school education that such a belief was completely incompatible with what we were taught in science class. However, as time went by, I began to rethink things on my own, without blindly depending on my public school guides. Basic common sense came to tell me that there had to be something behind the human body and other beings and facts of creation. About 6-7 years later, I began to look at the Bible, and was amazed at what it actually had to say. It was 10 years before I became a Christian.

My examination did not begin for the purpose of asserting what I already believed--my examination led me to what I now know to be true.

[Mean Green 93-98]

As to your comments about fish, you really are grasping at straws. Evidence of transitional fossils show that intermediate forms existed between fish and animals that can live on land. Of course you cannot take a fish that is fully adapted to live in water and place it on land and expect it to live. However, a fish that has the ability to live for some time out of water might have offspring who are a little better at doing that (or at surviving to reproduce because they gain an advantage by being able to do so). Eventually after many generations of natural selection working with the available natural variation in the population, new species can emerge. This takes incredibly long times in most organisms because of the times between generations, but can be seen in the fossil record. Although I am not a fish biologist, I have looked at several examples in the scientific literature relating to this topic. One example of a transitional fossil is an organism called Acanthostega that is an amphibian with internal gills and lungs (later fossils of amphibians do not have gills, only lungs).

Who is grasping at straws? You find fossil evidence, and assume it's "transitional" and "intermediate." Apparently you never consider the possibility that it might be its own species? To say it's transitional, you still need fish to flop out of the water, live, thrive, and ultimately give live birth to something that is in no way, shape, or form a fish. No one has ever observed a fish giving live birth to, or even sowing eggs of, something that is not a fish.

I was not clear from your post. Did you say you would be willing to debate your position publicly with a biologist who holds the intelligent design view (somewhat redudant, as design implies intelligence, but nonetheless)?

[UNTflyer]

To say it's transitional, you still need fish to flop out of the water, live, thrive, and ultimately give live birth to something that is in no way, shape, or form a fish. No one has ever observed a fish giving live birth to, or even sowing eggs of, something that is not a fish.

Wow. I'm completely speechless.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---My final comment... there are idiots on both sides of the argument... I found this site by accident when searching for something else entirely. This site is really disgusting.. look around at the site. It would be funny if it wasn't that this guy ( a minister in Arkansas) is actually serious.

http://www.truechristian.com/apes.html

He insists the world is flat among other things. Look around on the site. You will find something that offends you, I am sure.

_______________

If you want more evidence that the Earth is flat, look here:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

[UNTflyer]

http://www.truechristian.com/apes.html

LOL!!! This is great:

But Pastor Jim, There are photos of the Earth being round. Aren't there?

I hate when people do this. How would you know? Have you been to space? NO YOU HAVEN'T! This is a big conspiracy made by the government (the branches ran by the Liberals, mainly NASA). The above "photo" isn't a photo, but a picture made in PHOTOSHOP!! All previous "photos" were done with oil paints and other drawing mediums, by DEMONS!

The chair I'm sitting in now has wheels. If the world was round why doesn't gravity make me move down the curved Earth? IT DOESN'T!!! THE EARTH IS FLAT YOU RETARD!! Hellllllooo?

[3XNTGRAD]

Who is grasping at straws? You find fossil evidence, and assume it's "transitional" and "intermediate." Apparently you never consider the possibility that it might be its own species? To say it's transitional, you still need fish to flop out of the water, live, thrive, and ultimately give live birth to something that is in no way, shape, or form a fish. No one has ever observed a fish giving live birth to, or even sowing eggs of, something that is not a fish.

I was not clear from your post. Did you say you would be willing to debate your position publicly with a biologist who holds the intelligent design view (somewhat redudant, as design implies intelligence, but nonetheless)?

Are you aware that there are examples of fish with lungs that exist today? Here is a nice description of one species (with a good background on other species in this group and when they are first seen in the fossil record) at the Australian Museum Online. Also of note, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals, so you won't jump from fish to non-fish in one generation. But the traits of a population of fish can modify over time due to selective pressure to eventually produce a species that is different than that original population (but this is a not something that happens over night).

I'd love to see an intelligent design biologist who would actually provide scientific evidence FOR the intelligent design hypothesis. I have no problem with participating in a debate. However, experimentation is where arguments in science are really won. Until an experiment shows that evolution of species cannot happen or a preponderance of experiments provides greater support for an alternate hypothesis, biologists are not going to be convinced that anything other than evolution occurred. This is because experimentation over the last 150 years has produced evidence that continues to bolster the case of evolution.

To discount evolution you have to:

- ignore the fossil record and all the various methods by which geologists can date different strata

- ignore the examples of adaptation of organisms to their habitats (Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos is the most famous example)

- ignore the DNA sequence data that confirms relationships that had been previously inferred from the fossil record

- ignore modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria

I'm sure there are other things that I am forgetting or don't even know that I have left off of this list.

[Mean Green 93-98]

To discount evolution you have to:

- ignore the fossil record and all the various methods by which geologists can date different strata

- ignore the examples of adaptation of organisms to their habitats (Darwin's observations of finches in the Galapagos is the most famous example)

- ignore the DNA sequence data that confirms relationships that had been previously inferred from the fossil record

- ignore modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria

None of which proves evolution from one species into another.

- "The various methods by which geologists can date different strata." Why are the strata different in different locales? How is it possible that an "earlier" stratum can lie atop a "later" stratum? Why are "earlier" fossils found embedded in "later" strata, and vice versa?

- "Examples of adaptation of organims to their habitats." You note Darwin's observation of finches on the Galapagos. Well, if Darwinian evolution were true, why did the finches stay finches? Yes, there were changes that occurred, but this hardly justifies the blind leap of faith to evolution between species.

- "The DNA sequence data that confirms relationships that had been previously inferred from the fossil record." Many of those data have been revised as the years have gone by. What was originally asserted to be a 98-99% DNA similarity between human beings and chimpanzees is now believed to be 95%, and may prove less. And what does the similarity prove, anyhow? If chimpanzees and human beings began from the same parent, how did they evolve into two completely distinct species? If one evolutionary route were better than the other, would not both groups have to take it? Would they not continue to mate with each other to remain one muddled species? Or how did it happen that the one could no longer mate with the other?

Your use of the term "confirm" is somewhat unclear - do you mean "prove"? You can't, because it proves nothing. It merely allows the possibility of what had been previously inferred. Someone else made a post on this thread about examining the evidence while already holding a bias - this seems to apply to your used of "confirmed."

- "Modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Yet how many of those bacteria turned into cows? Again, limited change within a kind does not justify the blind leap of faith those of you who profess evolution have taken. I am slightly taller than my father, who was slightly taller than his father. This trend is not limited to my family. While it may be possible that my great-great-grandson will be 8 feet tall, I am not willing to allow the possibility that he might be a giraffe.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Mean Green 93-98