Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, Nymphodora), 972 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 13 of 54 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 53 54
Re: Science and Creation [Re: PHeMoX] #68891
04/12/06 00:01
04/12/06 00:01
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 51
N
Neonotso Offline
Junior Member
Neonotso  Offline
Junior Member
N

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 51
Hey guys, have a look at this link: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105. If you can read through all of it (it's not all that long), and truly think about it and be truthful with yourself, then I don't see how it would be "logical" to say evolution is scientific. (I'm writing this quick so I don't miss American Idol: please forgive any mistakes. )

Re: Science and Creation [Re: Neonotso] #68892
04/12/06 00:05
04/12/06 00:05
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
M
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert
Marco_Grubert  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
For the FSM's sake, at least bring up someone like Behe who's got some idea of what he's talking about and not a fruitcake like Mr. Hovind/Doc Dino.

(..and don't forget to buy his many popular books and videos..)

Re: Science and Creation [Re: Marco_Grubert] #68893
04/12/06 05:46
04/12/06 05:46
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
This Doc Dino might be crazy as you say, I haven't ever really read any of his stuff before, but he brings up some interesting points in that link. Really doesn't matter, though. You can't corner someone who's point will just end up being, "That's just the way it is." Or, "We don't know yet."


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #68894
04/12/06 06:39
04/12/06 06:39
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
There is no arguing with those kinds of people. We just need to either convince otehrs that they are crackpots, or eliminate them.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #68895
04/12/06 07:12
04/12/06 07:12
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William Offline
Expert
William  Offline
Expert

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
Your both right, it's almost impossible to argue with a bull-headed individual. A waste of time, as they will always win. You may even be fooled to think that they listen to your side of an arguement, but it's all an act, they have written their agenda long before the arguement began. However, theres no need to label them as crackpots or eliminate them. Infact, they could be of the brightest minds around, it takes brains to twist words around and argue a point with no real facts. Also, they can be very kind individuals if you bow down to them and wash their feet.

P.S - Marco brought up a good point about the books, merchandise, ect. You really have to wonder how many people are motivated by the money or by their beliefs.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: William] #68896
04/12/06 16:32
04/12/06 16:32
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 320
Vieselbach (bei Erfurt)
keinPlan86m Offline
Senior Member
keinPlan86m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 320
Vieselbach (bei Erfurt)
I readed a lot of the thinks here.
I'm a student of biology.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Scince is trying to find out if it is a right or wrong theory.
Not with words, but with facts!

The things about theory are some sides ago...

I hope i can mention some things that haven't been said:
For example a fact again Evolution could be the sexual mating, it's absolutely inefficient!
You make 1 out of 2 (egg and sperm) and the "improvement" is not better than having thousands of clones with mutations.
Thats a fact.


There are lots of facts that speak again it but more toward it, so its the actuall theory not more. You can fill empty spaces with god if you want but that will not bring the right answers i think.

Hope everybody understood my english.


"Wenn Wahlen etwas ändern würden, dann währen sie schon längst verboten!" Mein Projekt: Space - The Last Frontier http://www.space-the-last-frontier.de.vu
Re: Science and Creation [Re: keinPlan86m] #68897
04/12/06 16:43
04/12/06 16:43
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. A scientific theory theory that has stood for over 150 years without being falsified is as close to fact as science can come. It can never be positively proven.

Evolution has proven extraordinarly useful to science, becasue of its organizing power, and it predicatory power. For instance, Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa. He was right. This is why evolution is considered as a fact.

you are obviously either not a real student of biology, or are a bad student, because this a basic tennet of all science.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #68898
04/12/06 17:42
04/12/06 17:42
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
No, he's basically correct. Science is developing theories, not facts.

Most scientists speak of evolution as a fact because it's based on so many facts. But strictly speaking, it's only a theory, although a well founded one - just like general relativity or quantum theory.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: jcl] #68899
04/12/06 17:53
04/12/06 17:53
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
yes but there is a differenc between a scientific theory that is testable, and a theory of why someone likes cheese. poepel use the word theory like "its JUST a theory", meaning that it is unproven. You can't prove a theory, only falsify it--you know this.

And also, while natural selectiopn is debated, and exact relationships betwen organism, that evolution occured is indeed a scientific fact.


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #68900
04/13/06 03:52
04/13/06 03:52
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

And also, while natural selectiopn is debated, and exact relationships betwen organism, that evolution occured is indeed a scientific fact.




I think you have that backwards. Natural selection is a fact. You can debate it all you want, but its observable. What we don't observe is a creature gaining new data, we simply have to assume it happened based on evidence of the past. Which is fine and dandy, but it definately doesn't push evolution into the realm of fact.

That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.

Oh well.

Just one other thing you got wrong. If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.

Its easy enough to draw a diagram of half-eyes step-by-stepping the construction of the eye, but the eye is much more complex than a simple step-by-step children's diagram that evolutionists would show someone.

Quote:

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10 to the -12 sec]is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to "cut" a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

And the eye-cup sounds simple enough when Dawkins describes it, but dozens of proteins control the structure of cells and their arrangement, and needs molecular supports to hold the structure in place.

A major objection to the Dawkins scenario is that the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures’, and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.




The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.

JCL once said, if it can happen, it probably has. But how many hundreds of thousands of times can this statement apply within the finite amount of time allowed for evolution?

Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.


I'm going to regret posting this, though. I really shouldn't get back into this.


Here's where I got Dawkin's preschooler diagram and some of the info on the evolutionary history of the eye.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/13/06 03:52.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Page 13 of 54 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1