"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Comments (Page 272)

Showing posts 5,421 - 5,440 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5562
May 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
As well as the fact that the Earth is sphere like, orbits the Sun, is not the center of the universe, and that stars are extremely far away ... that's just for starters.
Or that you can get female goats to give birth to offspring with stripes if the mothers saw striped sticks. Great science, isn't it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5563
May 19, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Or that you can get female goats to give birth to offspring with stripes if the mothers saw striped sticks. Great science, isn't it?
Or the cure to a snakes bite is to look at a golden snake rod.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5564
May 19, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's the same curve of frequencies everywhere, yes?
Yes. Here's a pic:

http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_s...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5565
May 19, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means, do tell what I didn't understand.
Science specifically claimed a spike,
No, it predicted a very specific curve of intensities.
without expressing what exactly it measured and which of the elements that could not contribute to the measurement,
No radiation from stars or galaxies is included in the CMB.
as well as what entities could, as CMB is a hodgepodge of elements,
No, it is not.
coming from all of space and time,
No, from a very specific time: when the universe had cooled enough to become transparent to radiation.
still to this day and always will, as long as there are celestial bodies..
Wrong. it is not from celestial bodies.
That spike ment that it is at a specific frequency, with a specific range that not all this entities can have.
Not a specific frquency. A specific temperature. A range of frquencies and intensities determined by that temperature.
If all have it, prove they all posess the same exact qualities. Are all the entities radio waves? Lol
No, the radiation from stars and galaxies is quite distinct from the CMB.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5566
May 19, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand.
Natural selection means that what ever was chosen by nature IS THE SELECTION. There is no falsification for that.
It is not falsifiable. That is an absolute fact. You can not logically falsify natural selection. Period.
So your point is that natural selection is an observation, and therefore is a fact. Facts cannot be falsified.
So what is the problem?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5567
May 19, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
No, how all the celestial bodies must die, because they put off such massive amounts of radiation.
Most All that radiation goes into space, including all the radio waves that science used to measure the CMB, instead of using all the CMB waves.
But eventually all the stars will burn out, and the universe will grow cold dark and dead.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5568
May 19, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Wars kill a lot of people and significantly affect the gene pool. Natural selection?
That could come under genetic drift

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5569
May 19, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> But eventually all the stars will burn out, and the universe will grow cold dark and dead.
The CMB is found by looking back to the very early formation of the universe. You do realize the farther you look the earlier or closer to the beginning of time you see right?
But we do see microwaves emitted by the milky way since that time.
That is not what the target is however. The target is beyond the
visible horizon and we can only see the edge like a cloud, but it existed before the galaxies and beyond them. So we know it is not residual emissions from the galaxies , but traces predicted by the BBT as it was 13 bya and farther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizon_pro...

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5570
May 19, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So is there a philosophical difference between animals "waring" against each other and humans waring against each other?
<quoted text>
If natural environment just refers to the environment in which some population of some species lives isn't the environment then always "natural"? Meaning if humans artificially tinker with some environment then the new environment is artificially produced from the old environment, but it's still a new natural environment and the population(s) need to adapt to the "artificial changes".
I'm just throwing some thoughts out. This is obviously a vague concept.
If consciousness is a "natural product" why would it be artificial for the natural product to affect nature?
You might want to start with the philosophical definition of "artificial" and "natural"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5571
May 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has no direction. An organism with gills may have an ancestor with lungs. There is nothing in the theory of evolution to dismiss that, the theory supports it.
Humble Brother, lets go through a little exercise here: a classic demonstration of your goal post shifting.
You started, post #4883:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The particular subject is:
1. falsification through finding some fossil in some "wrong timeline"
2. evolution being able (or not) to flow in a manner that species evolve, disappear and "re-evolve"
To which the answer was and is YES to (1) and NO to (2). For the reason of statistical unlikelihood given, just for starters. But then you ask, on the same subject:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Given enough time and if the natural environment got not so friendly for land creatures. Do you think some land creature could evolve into some fish again?
And again the answer was NO, because that would require the step by step dialing back of every mutation since arriving on land, and that is incredibly unlikely (both for the statistical reasons stated, and natural selection).

The creature could go back to the water, potentially even become a water breather again, but could never be mistaken for a fish...as per your question post #4882, where you are suggesting that evolutionists would use the excuse of "evolving twice independently" to explain a rabbit in the Cambrian, should one be found.

You then shift the goalposts slightly:
humble brother wrote:
Can natural selection direct evolution of some population of an mammal species into the direction to develop gills from their lungs and thus become creatures of the water?
To which the answer is definitely NO if by gills you mean something that could be mistaken for a fish's gills. And that is the context of this thread. I thinks its clear by now that your suggestion, that evolutionists would try to claim double evolution for the rabbit (or now, the fish as well), is DEAD. But lacking any of your claimed humility, you do not concede the point but shift the goalposts again:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if an organ pumps water through and extract oxygen from the pumped water then what you have are GILLS. Period.
Yes, but you still wont have any gills that could be mistaken for fish gills.

You have merely retreated, without admitting it, to a position bearing no resemblance to your original claim. No, a rabbit could not evolve twice from different lines. No, a mammal going back to the water could never be mistaken for a fish. No, a mammal going back to the water would be extremely unlikely to evolve gills that could be mistaken for a fish’s gills.

Yes, a mammal might evolve some organ that could extract oxygen from water. But that was not your original question or point.

You DEFINED the “particular subject” right at the start of the thread, points (1) and (2) in post 4882. Check it again.

So, in spite of your slippery argumentation, we have explained how evolution is a scientific, falsifiable theory, and that no biologist would concoct any cock and bull about that rabbit “evolving twice”.

Do try to be honest about this. The point is made, accept it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5572
May 19, 2012
 
In the above post, all references to post 4882 should read, to Post #4883.

The point remains.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5573
May 19, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
Space cannot get to absolute zero. Too many different kinds of radiation from all galaxies.
Well, before you move on, will you accept that Polymath and others have patiently and accurately explained to you why the background radiation predicted by the BB and found in space, could not be mistaken for any other kind of radiation, and this is why scientists found that it was excellent confirmation of the BB theory?

Go on, at least concede something that has been made clear, or we will all have to write you off as completely crackers.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5574
May 19, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
So the problem I know have is:
If the selections of man are artificial, why are not the selections of other species artificial?
Does someone have an answer?
Define artificial
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5575
May 19, 2012
 
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5576
May 19, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.
WWIJD: What Would Imaginary Jesus Do ?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5577
May 19, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.
You and nobody is not 'we'.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5578
May 20, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it predicted a very specific curve of intensities.
<quoted text>
No radiation from stars or galaxies is included in the CMB.
<quoted text>
No, it is not.
<quoted text>
No, from a very specific time: when the universe had cooled enough to become transparent to radiation.
<quoted text>
Wrong. it is not from celestial bodies.
<quoted text>
Not a specific frquency. A specific temperature. A range of frquencies and intensities determined by that temperature.
<quoted text>
No, the radiation from stars and galaxies is quite distinct from the CMB.
Ah, in other words, you choose to be a willing idiot. Ok. Why should you change now.

Below is all that is in CMB. Show us the single entity measured and prove it has only one source.
CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background. It is also sometimes called the CBR, for Cosmic Background Radiation, although this is really a more general term that includes other cosmological backgrounds, eg infra-red, radio, x-ray, gravity-wave, neutrino. The CMB contains hugely more energy than any other cosmic radiation source, however, so it is the dominant component of the overall CBR spectrum. Other acronyms, such as CMBR, are also sometimes used!
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5579
May 20, 2012
 
The only reason the vastness and frozen wasteland that seems to go on forever does not descend into a total deep freeze, is because of the radiation emitted by the billions of suns and celestial bodies in space.

If as you evolutionary morons on here claim, that the big bang were responsible for the CMB, while you also claim that earth is some 4.5 billion years old and light from the furtherest reaches of space is about 14.6 billion years old, the vast cold of an endless space should have plunged everything into absolute zero long ago.

All the different kinds of radiation from the billions if not trillions of celestial bodies keep the endless space just above absolute zero.

Don't hurt your little pea sized brains considering what a 5th grader should understand, given the available information, children.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Level 2

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5580
May 20, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
This odd notion of human choices being artificial in relation to evolution separates the human species from evolution.
No it doesn't. Humans are firmly anchored to the animal kingdom, and thus inseparable from evolution.}

Do you have a point?
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5581
May 20, 2012
 
With the recent revelation from science, that claims Einstein was wrong about gravity and that scientists proved it--gravity could be made 17 times more powerful with a spinning motion, much of science is wrong in so many other ways, like the following.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,421 - 5,440 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

16 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min MikeF 105,906
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 28 min One way or another 168,488
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 43 min MikeF 126,996
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 13,472
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 21 hr MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Tue ChristineM 13,936
Science News (Sep '13) Tue nanoanomaly 2,670
•••
•••
•••
•••