Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Baiting the non-evolution people
Author Message
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #41
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Wow! ....

The biggest fantasy for evolution is the majority of scientists agree the universe has a beginning. The beginning of the universe is where the disagreement originates and what evolutionists can't rationally explain. How could something start from nothing the volume of gas needed to form the universe would be beyond comprehension. Where did the gas come from, with no heat source and no gravitational forces in existence if the universe has no boundaries how could there be any pressure what would cause the gases to explode? The one thing evolutionists can not explain is the source for matter needed to create the universe.

Wow is right. You manage to completely misunderstand what the theory of evolution says and then try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable. Evolution says nil, nada, zlich, nothing about the origin of life. Evolution speaks only to the diversity of life on this planet and how that diversity came about. All that bull about where did gas come from, gravitational forces, the source of matter and the boundaries of the universe are completely non-sequiturs.

It seems clear to me that you don't have a problem with evolution, you have a problem with reality-based science. If you want to cover your eyes and ears and sing "lalalala", fine, but don't force your views on anyone else.

Also let me show you what is wrong with your "experiment".
Quote:Really there has been observed life from non-living chemicals with no intervention by scientists aka creators!!! That is truly amazing if this has in fact ever been observed it would end the creationism debate, but it hasn't. If it has been observed in laboratory conditions it is because scientists aka creators put the chemicals together under the precise conditions needed to start the process for life. Any experiment like this would prove creationism NOT evolution.
First such an experiment wouldn't prove much at all. Evolution does not even enter into this experiment. What would be shown would be that life can arise from non-life, if they did this. Second, it wouldn't determine what actually started life on this planet at all. It could be panspermia, it could be some creator, it could be abiogenesis. It certainly doesn't prove creationism.

Finally, atheism isn't a religion. evolution isn't a religion. I also went to Catholic school (grades 4-12), and I was taught evolution (and other good science) there. I went on to college to do quite well in engineering.
01-25-2008 08:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crebman Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
Not intending to hijack this thread, but I would disagree with this statement:

subflea Wrote:I attended a Catholic HS, so I agree that most private schools do provide a better education.

There are plenty of great public schools and excellent private schools. However, I think that the parents of a school's students have more to do with the "quality of education" often than the school itself.

Parents of private school students are almost always very involved in their childrens education and obviously believe that education is important or they wouldn't be willing to pay the private school tuition. However, I think that the above situation is also present in many public schools, it just depends on the constituency the public school is located in.
01-25-2008 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
subflea Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 15,441
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Free Thinking
Location: Norwood

DonatorsFolding@NCAAbbsFolding@NCAAbbs
Post: #43
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
I attended both Catholic and public school. The education I recieved at Catholic school blew away what I was getting at public school.
01-25-2008 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanatical Offline
lost in dreams of hops & barley
*

Posts: 4,180
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For: South Park Cows
Location: Luh-ville
Post: #44
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
subflea Wrote:I attended both Catholic and public school. The education I recieved at Catholic school blew away what I was getting at public school.


I'm glad I went to Walnut before any Catholic High school. Of course, if I didn't go to Walnut I'd probably go to a Catholic school instead.
01-25-2008 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THE NC Herd Fan Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,168
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 521
I Root For: Marshall
Location: Charlotte
Post: #45
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Wow is right. You manage to completely misunderstand what the theory of evolution says and then try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable. Evolution says nil, nada, zlich, nothing about the origin of life. Evolution speaks only to the diversity of life on this planet and how that diversity came about. All that bull about where did gas come from, gravitational forces, the source of matter and the boundaries of the universe are completely non-sequiturs.

It seems clear to me that you don't have a problem with evolution, you have a problem with reality-based science. If you want to cover your eyes and ears and sing "lalalala", fine, but don't force your views on anyone else.

Also let me show you what is wrong with your "experiment".
Quote:Really there has been observed life from non-living chemicals with no intervention by scientists aka creators!!! That is truly amazing if this has in fact ever been observed it would end the creationism debate, but it hasn't. If it has been observed in laboratory conditions it is because scientists aka creators put the chemicals together under the precise conditions needed to start the process for life. Any experiment like this would prove creationism NOT evolution.
First such an experiment wouldn't prove much at all. Evolution does not even enter into this experiment. What would be shown would be that life can arise from non-life, if they did this. Second, it wouldn't determine what actually started life on this planet at all. It could be panspermia, it could be some creator, it could be abiogenesis. It certainly doesn't prove creationism.

Finally, atheism isn't a religion. evolution isn't a religion. I also went to Catholic school (grades 4-12), and I was taught evolution (and other good science) there. I went on to college to do quite well in engineering.

You don't seem to know what evolutionists have done or what your own evolutionist buddies on the board have posted to defend evolution?

Quote:The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.[1][2][3]

The Miller-Urey experiment was posted on this board as a cornerstone of evolutionary science.

How does being an engineer qualify you as an evolutionary expert? Many engineers take about as much biology as business majors.
01-25-2008 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zero Offline
Banned

Posts: 77
Joined: Jan 2007
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:The Miller-Urey experiment was posted on this board as a cornerstone of evolutionary science.

No it wasn't. It was posted in response to two misconceptions from an ID'er who was trying to claim that evolution is wrong until all the puzzle pieces were complete, and that there was no scientific evidence that supported the formation of organic molecules from a rough approximation of the conditions on earth 4+ billion years ago.
01-25-2008 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #47
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
Quote:The Miller-Urey experiment was posted on this board as a cornerstone of evolutionary science.
Well that's crap, if they did. Because it isn't. Miller-Urey was one interesting experiment done concerning abiogenesis (specifically the formation of organic compounds), but it only showed that with the right mix of chemicals basic building blocks of life could start to be formed.
Quote:How does being an engineer qualify you as an evolutionary expert? Many engineers take about as much biology as business majors.
It doesn't. I don't claim to be an expert in the field. But credentials don't mean a whole lot when it comes to good and bad a arguments. I could have every degree known to man, but if I say that grass is red, all those degrees do not add any credence to my assertion.

Engineers do have a small amount of scientific study in their early years so I know the basics of how it works. Add to that the fact that I have an amateur interest in science, so I am familiar with the debate. This does not make me an expert, and you should immediately ignore anyone who tries to use their credentials to back up their claim. Would you buy stock because someone says, "Buy this because I have an MBA and it makes me an expert?" I'm not saying credentials make a person wrong, I'm saying that using your credentials to win an argument is a logical fallacy, specifically an argument from authority.

I came to this debate through these boards from an ID proponent who wanted me to look at the evidence. The arguments he directed me to were not compelling. I'm still looking for an ID proponent to give a compelling argument. But when I hear them they are either complaints about their misunderstand of what evolutionary theory says, or the same tired arguments that have been going around for years and have long been debunked.
01-25-2008 11:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EastStang Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,201
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
Didn't I read somewhere that in Great Britain of all places, the Board of Education ruled that evolution needed to be taught with some qualifications as to its veracity?
01-25-2008 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #49
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
On a side note, there is some crossover within Biologists and Engineers, especially in the field of artificial intelligence. The principles of evolution are being implemented in evolutionary algorithms and are being shown to work in expected and unexpected ways. I did my senior project on Swarm AI, and emergent behavior.
01-25-2008 11:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #50
RE: Baiting the non-evolution people
EastStang Wrote:Didn't I read somewhere that in Great Britain of all places, the Board of Education ruled that evolution needed to be taught with some qualifications as to its veracity?

You may have, but that wouldn't be particularly surprising. BoEs are doing that all of the time. See Dover, PN, Kansas a few years back, and Florida right now. But this doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to the veracity of the theory. The people making these policies are not always well informed on the issues, are just trying to shoehorn creationism into schools, or failing that kick evolution out.
01-25-2008 11:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.