Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Evolution

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Go study quantum physics. Specifically, go get a copy of "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen W. Hawking. It is a fairly accessable book and it can help you understand just how matter can come into being... not quite from nothing, but from nothing more than energy.
You see, much of what you are arguing is merely your proclamation of your ignorance. Don't worry, ignorance can be easily cured with the right effort. Stupidity, on the other hand, is a quagmire for life. As Robert A. Heinlein said, it is the only universal death sentence.

I don't think he could get past the first chapter of "Brief History" without exploding!

Jim Ryan wrote:

..........
It's good to see so many that care not to understand.
..........
And why would that be? Boy, i'm not following you at all.....understand what exactly?.....

Cash wrote:

The more we learn about evolution, the closer we come to converging on the most correct answer. Like aspirin and magnetic fields, we know it works but we're often unsure exactly how - but that's why we have science.

So if you dont know how it works, how can you be sure that it is the thing which is actually working?

You scientist type are are funny bunch... LOL.

As far as I can see, there is only one logical principle which keeps the "boat of evolution" afloat : "You cant prove a negative".

It is possible to find evidence to support even the most absurd ideas; but logic and the nature of reality do not allow one to establish a negative ("that which is not").

DMH wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think he could get past the first chapter of "Brief History" without exploding!

Anyone who is willing to let a man who is only a few decades old, tell you about the "history of time"; deserves to be exploded... LOL

I realize that people who shun the concept of creationism are significantly lacking in creativity... I mean if you like to hear cockamamie stories about the origin of time and things, why not make up some for yourself (thats what everyone else does anyway). LOL

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>Wow, you are just absolutely retarded aren't you? I'd point out the 100+ ways you are wrong, but what would be the point. You've long ago had your brain removed.

Go back to watching FoxNews and stop trying to destroy America.

Go back to Talkorigins and CNN with your Planet of the Apes hogwash...

Jesus Rebel Not A Breeder wrote:

<quoted text>Jesus was anti-establishment which may be the reason he never married. This is far from any wild evolutionary conditions except maybe a few primates. In a society a female wants a male that is in line with establishment making the chances of their offspring's survival and prosperity far greater.

On a side note this is why the right of freedom of speech is rare used. If a person uses their freedom of speech and what the person says is far from the status quoe the person may be osteracized from society and employment. This greatly decreases this persons chances of reproduction. In evolutionary terms this creates a breed of people with more drone and robotic like methodologies almost unable to think for themselves.

Lol... It's clear you don't know anything about women or Jesus...

defender wrote:

<quoted text>
Go back to Talkorigins and CNN with your Planet of the Apes hogwash...

You are from Kentucky.

That's ALL that needs to be said about your opinion on science.

U_ONLY_KNOWHAT_U_THINK wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you dont know how it works, how can you be sure that it is the thing which is actually working?
You scientist type are are funny bunch... LOL.
As far as I can see, there is only one logical principle which keeps the "boat of evolution" afloat : "You cant prove a negative".
It is possible to find evidence to support even the most absurd ideas; but logic and the nature of reality do not allow one to establish a negative ("that which is not").

Let's ignore the all the evidence that supports Evolution for now, because I really don't have the time to go into it.
Let's focus on one thing: Science continuously tests and retests theories based on evidence to refine and verify any and all findings. Science recognizes that doing this is the only way to make sure that the facts are revealed.
Faith, by it's very nature, does not employ testing and retesting as Science does, for if it did, then it would not be Faith, but Science. If the principles of a Faith were put to such tests, they would fail almost immediately.
So, the point is, while, in your view, Science is finding evidence to support their ideas, no matter how absurd, at least they're trying to use techniques to demonstrate the logic. Faith simply commands you to unquestioningly accept absurd ideas, no matter how much they contradict with obvious evidence to the contrary.

Jesus Rebel Not A Breeder wrote:

<quoted text>Jesus was anti-establishment which may be the reason he never married. This is far from any wild evolutionary conditions except maybe a few primates. In a society a female wants a male that is in line with establishment making the chances of their offspring's survival and prosperity far greater.
On a side note this is why the right of freedom of speech is rare used. If a person uses their freedom of speech and what the person says is far from the status quoe the person may be osteracized from society and employment. This greatly decreases this persons chances of reproduction. In evolutionary terms this creates a breed of people with more drone and robotic like methodologies almost unable to think for themselves.

That is exactly what has happened.

Most scientists can't think for themselves.

Lenski's antibiotic claim
If you claim something, show proof.
Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

By Jim Ryan 

I am just wondering how anybody can really be sane and a christian?? Do they not even question the time envolved for OIL to be possible?? Just wondering??? Don't mean to rock the "ARK" lol

Psychology wrote:

Most all of Americas school children have simply grown to be the same cliquish, copy and paste individuals, that the schools taught them to be.
Power hates competition, so it simply dumbs down any rivals, meaning all schools. Only religions vote is a problem for today's power hungry and they are using the power of gov, the media, science and the schools, to achieve their goals.

If the School system would teach the youth HOW to think, not WHAT to think..ahhh that would be refreshing!

U_ONLY_KNOWHAT_U_THINK wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you dont know how it works, how can you be sure that it is the thing which is actually working?
You scientist type are are funny bunch... LOL.
As far as I can see, there is only one logical principle which keeps the "boat of evolution" afloat : "You cant prove a negative".
It is possible to find evidence to support even the most absurd ideas; but logic and the nature of reality do not allow one to establish a negative ("that which is not").

I like the way you think!

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are from Kentucky.
That's ALL that needs to be said about your opinion on science.

That is a dumb statement..thanks for the mentality flash card you just gave! LOL

mindchatter wrote:

<quoted text>
If the School system would teach the youth HOW to think, not WHAT to think..ahhh that would be refreshing!

True, but they won't.

Psychology wrote:

Most all of Americas school children have simply grown to be the same cliquish, copy and paste individuals, that the schools taught them to be.
Power hates competition, so it simply dumbs down any rivals, meaning all schools. Only religions vote is a problem for today's power hungry and they are using the power of gov, the media, science and the schools, to achieve their goals.

Power hates competition, it's true, but I you're not thinking clearly about Religion's place in the power struggle. The Evangelists and Zealots are just as guilty as any other group of keeping the masses uneducated so that they're more easily controlled. Religion's vote is not the problem for today's power hungry, education is. Religion thrives on ignorance, that's where it's power lies. Education removes ignorance, thereby rendering Religion powerless. It's the same in every other aspect in life: the more the people know, the less likely those in power are able to take advantage of the people.
The problem with Religion is their incessant need to interject their views and contradict proven theories, thereby generating confusion and reducing what people KNOW. And then once the people are confused, the other power-mongers take advantage of it.

mindchatter wrote:

<quoted text>
If the School system would teach the youth HOW to think, not WHAT to think..ahhh that would be refreshing!

That's not the school system's job. That's the job of parents. The school system simply does what the voters and the PTA tell them to do.

So perhaps if parents valued thinking over obedience more than they do presently, things would start to change for the better.

Like it or not, it ultimately comes down to the parents. Not the schools, churches, businesses or governments. It is the parents' job to raise decent Human Beings, and if that hasn't happened, there's only one group to blame.