Republican says evolution, Big Bang theory 'lies straight from the pit of hell' - Page 16

AzMike · #**151** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

This coming from the guy who was simply making up stupid crap about how Christians were supposedly the advancers of knowledge and it was the scientists insisting the earth was flat?

No. Religious people are not necessarily stupid.
But some people use religion as an excuse for stupidity...

Nope, you are the one refusing to acknowledge the science of the time was that the earth was flat and had monsters at the edge and it took someone of faith, in themselves, and belief that they knew it wasn't. And proved it. Science is a good thing, we all want to learn more. And strive for that knowledge. Despite the day's science or religion. It's not an either or equasion.

foundit66 · #**152** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

Nope, you are the one refusing to acknowledge the science of the time was that the earth was flat...

Wrong.
I welcome you to document whatever "science" at that time said "earth was flat".
You keep making CLAIMS, but you refuse to document it.

That is what RELIGION proclaimed, and INSISTED people repeat our else there was punishment.
THAT is what happened.

I have already documented this, but you lack the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

... and had monsters at the edge and it took someone of faith, in themselves, and belief that they knew it wasn't.

It's funny how you want to throw the word "belief" in there, when the real issue at hand is RELIGION.

If you think anybody is falling for this propagandic change of words, you're deluding yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

And proved it. Science is a good thing, we all want to learn more. And strive for that knowledge.

Part of the point of this thread is that there is a large percentage of Christians who do NOT want to learn more.
In fact, since their religion has told them to think one way, they refuse to listen to any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

Despite the day's science or religion. It's not an either or equasion.

That's the funny thing about you refusing to listen.
NOBODY IS SAYING that it's an "either or equasion (sic)".

But instead of having the intellectual honesty and courage to simply admit "Yes. The Christian religion HAS held back science in the past.", you have some people who let their guilt get the better of them and start spewing b.s.

Oftencold · #**153** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Still waiting on any semblance of proof of your claim...
Not a thing you said made any lick of sense.

Just because you make up crap doesn't make it true...

Incidentally, I can't help but notice you completely side-stepped my earlier proof regarding pastors and Christians, regarding accepting the actual age of the earth and evolution.

The Earth is flat. Just look out your window.

The Earth is round, look at it from, space.

It's all about frame of reference.

We think of a stone as solid, but it's almost entirely empty space.

To a neutrino, is scarcely exists at all.

To the poet, love conquers all. To the biochemists it's just a chemical soup.

Lots of things are true and false at the same time.

dabateman · #**154** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 11:09 PM

The debate over what is and what isn't scientific fact is complicated and detailed. And frankly, healthy to a degree. But when you've got someone spouting something that CAN'T be fact based upon every shred of evidence, you've got an issue. And that's really the issue we have here.

What I want to know is who the hell appointed these two bozos to the Science and Technology committee... Off with that person's head!

I don't buy into the idea that Republicans are idiots (though some clearly are), but it makes it harder and harder for rational human beings to trust in the judgment of leadership that would appoint tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb to the Science and Technology committee.

Oftencold · #**155** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

The debate over what is and what isn't scientific fact is complicated and detailed. And frankly, healthy to a degree. But when you've got someone spouting something that CAN'T be fact based upon every shred of evidence, you've got an issue. And that's really the issue we have here.

What I want to know is who the hell appointed these two bozos to the Science and Technology committee... Off with that person's head!

I don't buy into the idea that Republicans are idiots (though some clearly are), but it makes it harder and harder for rational human beings to trust in the judgment of leadership that would appoint tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb to the Science and Technology committee.

What about an electorate that would appoint a rube with little to no experience in the business and arguable contempt for both to the Presidency in the sure and certain belief that he would positively affect the economy?

dabateman · #**156** (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

What about an electorate that would appoint a rube with little to no experience in the business and arguable contempt for both to the Presidency in the sure and certain belief that he would positively affect the economy?

You're talking about the masses... History proves the masses are easily swayed. See Hitler.

How about addressing the point that the Republican leadership in the House determined who sits on these committees from their party, and they put these two twits on the committee LEAST suited to their knowledge base/skill set.

mr. wonder · #**157** (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

This makes no sense. What mechanism are you talking about that can determine whether or not a mutation is good or bad and fix it? How does it make this determination? Based on what information? How does it "correct" its own genetic structure? I am aware of nothing in our bodies that can spontaneously rewrite our dna on some whim when ... something... decides that some mutation is "bad" (which is a subjective term)

A frogs Genetic code tells it that skin made to XYZ specifications is GOOD frog skin. Skin not made to the exact specifications in the code given at birth passed down correctly for generations is BAD.
it's not subjective at all. If it's not in according to code it's BAD, if it obeys the code it's Good and works as designed.

When a mutation occurs a creatures body is aware of a malfution. there are biological responses to the mutation. part of the response is an atempt to repair the mutation and get it back inline with code or eject it from the body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Methinks you should read a bit more about it.

I've read a bit, should read more but the basic info doesn't seem to change to make things better them. And on boards there a lot of Bluster and Outrage but not much info to back it up.

People like the Atheist scientist Dawkins ends up saying stuff like the universe and biology "APPEAR as if they've been designed, but they are not."
It just makes me wonder.

Oftencold · #**158** (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

You're talking about the masses... History proves the masses are easily swayed. See Hitler.

How about addressing the point that the Republican leadership in the House determined who sits on these committees from their party, and they put these two twits on the committee LEAST suited to their knowledge base/skill set.

I'm more inclined to question why such committees exist at all.

dabateman · #**159** (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I'm more inclined to question why such committees exist at all.

Evade again...

I see, unable to answer the question and unwilling to admit defeat.

mr. wonder · #**160** (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 02:15 AM

here's a a couple of quotes from evolutionist that go to my points.

"Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895 - 1985) was a French zoologist who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences.[1][2] Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".[3]

Quote:

"Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have
"stabilized a billion years ago!".[4]

Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations
" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[5]

Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:
“ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6 Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8
It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31[6]

Quote:

"As it happens, [Hermann J.J Muller's researches [into using radiation to increase mutations] have given rise to some rather disquieting thoughts concerning the future of the human species. While mutations are an important driving force in evolution, occasionally producing an improvement that enables a species to cope better with its environment, the beneficial mutation is very much the exception. Most mutations at least 99 percent of them are detrimental, some even lethal. Eventually, even those that are only slightly harmful die out, because their bearers do not get along as well and leave fewer descendants than healthy individuals do. But in the meantime a mutation may cause illness and suffering for many generations. Furthermore, new mutations keep cropping up continually, and every species carries a constant load of defective genes. Thus, more than 1,600 human diseases are thought to be the result of genetic defects . . The number of deleterious genes (the genetic loam gives rise to fears and justified anxiety."

*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 812.

Quote:

"The frequency with which a single non harmful mutation is known to once mutate is about 1 in 1000. The probability that two favorable mutations would occur is 1 in 103 X 10', in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of the separate structural elements. There may be 30,E involved in a single wing structure. It is moat unlikely that fewer than five genders could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favorable mutations occurring within a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero." *E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 120.

Random mutations could not produce five effective, beneficial changed genes.

"The difficulties in explaining the origin of increased complexity as a result of bringing a 'cluster' of genes together within the nuclei of a single organism in terms of probabilities, fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism.

"The improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes increases from one to five . . The problem of bringing together the eve mutated genes we are considering, within a single nucleus, and for them to 'fit' immediately into this vast complex of interacting units, is indeed difficult. When it is remembered that they must give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large. Due to interbreeding, it seems impossible to explain these events in terms of random mutation alone." *E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, (1982), pp. 123-124.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to AzMike For This Useful Post:
Oftencold

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Kizzume, off the porch, operanut2008

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Comet, Coyote

The Following User Says Thank You to Oftencold For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty

The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Comet