Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
i've said it plenty of times already, evolution isn't a religious story, unlike ID which is a rebranded bible story.... so Evolution shouldn't be taught then??
I would personally favour the teaching of Evolution, including evidence against it ... as well as ID ... for a complete science education on the issue of 'origins' .
i was responding to you claiming to be a victim of personal abuse.... I was told to report them ... and I prefer to simply challenge them!!!
In fairness to them, the Mods have enough to do, without adjudicating on the errors of posters on this thread ... which would be a full-time job!!!:eek:
thats what the majority of posters have been doing. but i agree with the sentiment:)Lets all turn over a new leaf ... and lets all discuss the issues rationally ... and with mutual respect.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Materialistic Evolution isn't even re-branded ... its THE Atheistic Humanist Religion's Origins Story, full stop. Like I have said, we should have both the Theist and the Atheist 'origins explantion' ... or none at all.i've said it plenty of times already, evolution isn't a religious story, unlike ID which is a rebranded bible story.
I would prefer both to be taught ... as children will encounter both in society ... and they should know everything about these important ideas.
I prefer to defend myself on this as well !!!i was responding to you claiming to be a victim of personal abuse.
Good.thats what the majority of posters have been doing. but i agree with the sentiment:)0 -
Materialistic Evolution isn't even re-branded ... its THE Atheistic Humanist Religion's Origins Story, full stop. Like I have said, we ether have both the Theist and the Atheist 'origins explantion' ... or none.
must we continue withm this indefinitely? Atheism isn't a religion. it has no sacraments, no rites of passage, no holy book or any other collection of myths.
I know you're really struggling to understand, but you obviously have difficulties grasping the fact that science isn't property of any one group.
you're attempting to distort science and atheism so as to push your myths into science.
feel free to repeat yourself again if you wish, but it's essentially a dead end in terms of discussion.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Atheistic Humanism is indeed a fully fledged religion ... with its own 'dogmas' (like Evolution and Abiogenesis), 'Holy Books' (like the Origins of Species), 'High Priests' (like Stephen J Gould) ... and rites of passage (like Humanist weddings and funerals).must we continue withm this indefinitely? Atheism isn't a religion. it has no sacraments, no rites of passage, no holy book or any other collection of myths.
Atheism is a faith ... in the non-existence of God(s) ... just like Theism is a faith in the existence of God(s).
Atheism is a 'worldview' just like Theism is also a 'worldview' and thus Atheistic Humanism is a de faco religion ... and Materialistic Evolution is one of its 'Articles of Faith'.
That's why you guys are defending Evolution on this thread with religious levels of fervour and commitment.
I agree that science isn't the exclusive property of Materialists ... that's why we have Creation Science and ID, after all!!!I know you're really struggling to understand, but you obviously have difficulties grasping the fact that science isn't property of any one group.
... the Materialists are the ones trying to enlist science exclusively to their own self-serving ends!!!you're attempting to distort science and atheism so as to push your myths into science.
All I want is fair play!!!
Mutual respect and equality of treatment is fundamental to the relationship between Theists and Atheists going forward in our multi-cultural society!!!feel free to repeat yourself again if you wish, but it's essentially a dead end in terms of discussion.0 -
just because you think it, doesn't make it so.Atheistic Humanism is indeed a fully fledged religion ... with its own 'dogmas' (like Evolution and Abiogenesis), 'Holy Books' (like the Origins of Species), 'High Priests' (like Stephen J Gould) ... and rites of passage (like Humanist weddings and funerals).
Atheism is a faith ... in the non-existence of God(s) ... just like Theism is a faith in the existence of God(s).
myths aren't science.I agree that science isn't the exclusive property of Materialists ... that's why we have Creation Science and ID!!!
no you don't. you want to subvert/redfine science to suit your religious belief.... you're the ones trying to enlist science exclusively to your self-serving ends!!!
All I want is fair play!!!
so for theists and atheists to co-exist, according to you religion must be allowed preach myths as fact?Its fundamental to the relationship between Theists and Atheists going forward in our multi-cultural society!!!
so will we have to teach that storms are caused by Thor? so as to have a counter point to science?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
... that also applies to you too!!!just because you think it, doesn't make it so.
... equally, just because I think it doesn't not make it so!!
... and its an objective reality that Atheism is a faith in the non-existence of God(s) ... and it is thus a religion ... just like Theism.
Both religions should be treated equally ... and if it is proposed to teach the Atheist 'origins story' as science ... then the Theist 'origins story' should equally be taught as science.
... so the myths of Materialistic Evolution aren't science then!!!myths aren't science.
... you're the guys that have enlisted science to bolster your faith in Materialism ... and ye have got away with it ... but not any more!!!no you don't. you want to subvert/redfine science to suit your religious belief.
... Materialists are the ones that are claiming the many myths of Evolution to be facts ... when all they are is 'just-so' stories ... with no evidence that they ever happened.so for theists and atheists to co-exist, according to you religion must be allowed preach myths as fact?
The science is clear and repeatably observable, that lightning is an electrical phenomenon.so will we have to teach that storms are caused by Thor? so as to have a counter point to science?
It is neither clear nor repeatably observable that Pondkind turned into Mankind ... and all logic denies that it ever could or did occur.0 -
-
JC, i've posted evidence of evolution on multiple occasions, which is more than can said of yourself with regards to your bible stories.
as for the rest of your post, i've decided to let you chase your own tail.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
whats the incentive to answer you? you dismiss everything as a lie or an error.
how about you try to provide evidence for your position?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
If there ever comes the day where a school tries to pawn off 'intelligent design' to my children as a science topic, they will be taken out of it immediately. Intelligent Design lacks any evidence. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Also - I'm not sure why evolution is being discussed. Evolution is not responsible for how the world was created. It only accounts for how life on earth evolved into the grand array of species that we have today. Teach a child astronomy - that is all the intelligent design they need. They will quickly realise that the universe is far from intelligently designed.
Keep your religion out of schools. If you want your child to learn about religion, have them study an optional subject. But don't force it on other children.0 -
OKwhats the incentive to answer you? you dismiss everything as a lie or an error.
how about you try to provide evidence for your position?
1. If a belief that God exists is defined as a 'religion' ... then a belief that God doesn't exist is also logically a 'religion'.
2. If the 'origins story' of the believers in the non-existence of God is Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution ... then this 'origins story' is 'religion' ... and should not be taught in science class IF all religious stories are genuinely banned in science class.
3. As Abiogenesis, Materialistic Evolution, ID and Creation Science are the main 'origins explanations' that people will come across within our society, then a knowledge of the evidence in favour of these ideas ... as well as their shortcomings, is essential to a full liberal education.
4. The 'fig leaf' that Abiogenesis and Materialsitic Evolution is 'science' ... is just that ... a self-serving viewpoint to allow ye to teach your religious views on 'origins' in science class and exclude everybody elses!!!
... such self-serving 'exclusivist' religious arrogance was last seen in church circles some time during the Middle Ages ... but it seems to be alive and well in materialist circles right here and now!!!!
... your problem (and my problem with you) is your overwhelming religious desire to brainwash your own (and everybody else's) children with your Materialistic beliefs ... on the 'origins issue'
... I say 'brainwash' because you wish to teach your own religious ideas as fact, while excluding consideration of the logical and evidential flaws in your beliefs as well as any consideration of other people's beliefs ... including the beliefs of over 90% of this society ... who are still Mono-theists!!!
... but ironically ye have got away with this up to now ... because most Christians left the scientific and religious education of their children up to church-run schools ... but not any longer!!!0 -
well thats wrong. I've explained it multiple times that a lack of belief is not a belief system. clearly you can't comprehend someone not being religious so you keep repeating the same confused statement.OK
1. If a belief that God exists is defined as a 'religion' ... then a belief that God doesn't exist is also logically a 'religion'.
Once again, you presume all evolutionists are atheists. Another glaring error on your behalf. evolution and abiogenesis are part of the science realm, nothing else. It's not religious stories. Can you let that reality sink in and not start round the carousel once again?2. If the 'origins story' of the believers in the non-existence of God is Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution ... then this 'origins story' is 'religion' ... and should not be taught in science class IF religious stories are genuinely banned in science class.
ID/ creationism are religious, evolution/abiogenesis are science. Still failing to understand I see, You want religion in the science class, where it has no place.3. As Abiogenesis, Materialistic Evolution, ID and Creation Science are scientific/religious ideas that people will come across within society, then a knowledge of the evidence in favour of these ideas ... as well as their shortcomings, is essential to a full education.
More confused nonsense which has been addressed above.4. The 'fig leaf' that Abiogenesis and Materialsitic evolution is 'science' ... is just that ... a self-serving ruse to allow ye to teach your religious views on 'origins' in science class and exclude everybody elses!!!
... such 'exclusivist' religious arrogance was last seen in church circles some time during the Middle Ages ... but it seems to be alive and well in Materialist Circles right here and now!!!!
How dare I!! wanting kids to be taught science! outrageous!!:rolleyes:... your problem (and my problem with you) is your overwhelming religious desire to brainwash your own (and everybody else's) children with your Materialistic beliefs ... on the 'origins issue'
... I say 'brainwash' because you wish to exclude consideration of the logical and evidential flaws in your own beliefs as well as any consideration of other people's beliefs ... including the beliefs of over 90% of this society ... who are still Mono-theists!!!
... all I can say is, that takes some 'brass neck'!!!!:eek:
I'm not religious. so all of that is just creationist waffle.... but ironically ye have got away with it up to now ... because most Christians left the scientific and religious education of their children up to some church ... but not any longer!!!
Exactly, the church shouldn't be in the class room! glad we agree.
And we still have no evidence from you to back up your creation myth. just confused ramblings of someone who has a problem with science and religion being separate.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
OK
1. If a belief that God exists is defined as a 'religion' ... then a belief that God doesn't exist is also logically a 'religion'.
So is a belief that Thor does not exist, 'logically' a religion also? You seem to forget - to make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Not believing in something, does not make it a religion. There are thousands of possible Godlike figures that someone might not believe in.2. If the 'origins story' of the believers in the non-existence of God is Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution ... then this 'origins story' is 'religion' ... and should not be taught in science class IF religious stories are genuinely banned in science class.
Evolution is a scientific fact. We have evidence for evolution. That is why it is taught in science class. There is no evidence for intelligent design - therefore, it is not taught in Science class. Nor is it a 'religion'.4. The 'fig leaf' that Abiogenesis and Materialsitic evolution is 'science' ... is just that ... a self-serving ruse to allow ye to teach your religious views on 'origins' in science class and exclude everybody elses!!!
... such 'exclusivist' religious arrogance was last seen in church circles some time during the Middle Ages ... but it seems to be alive and well in Materialist Circles right here and now!!!!
Firstly - You make the claim that you know God created life and the universe. We do not make such a claim. Evolution describes the advancement of a species. The Big Bang theory describes an expansion event, which lead to the creation of billions of stars and planets - a small portion of which are habitable. How the Big Bang event came about - most scientists are humble enough to say "I don't exactly know". But what they don't do is fill gaps with Deities to make up for lack of a complete and final answer. We may never have an answer - but science is progressing towards it with every year - religion is still harping on about the same old nonsense for the past 2000 years.
So from a scientific standpoint - we can trace the big bang through astronomy, and examine evolution through transitional fossils. That is why they are scientific topics. So where exactly is the evidence for 'intelligent design'?0 -
Now you know roughly how Christians feel about Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution stories (that, unlike ID, have no logical or evidential basis)If there ever comes the day where a school tries to pawn off 'intelligent design' to my children as a science topic, they will be taken out of it immediately. Intelligent Design lacks any evidence. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Aboigenesis and Evolution is the Atheistic Humanist 'origins story' for life ... the 'Big Bang' (or variations thereon) is their 'origins story' for the Universe.Also - I'm not sure why evolution is being discussed. Evolution is not responsible for how the world was created. It only accounts for how life on earth evolved into the grand array of .that we have today. Teach a child astronomy - that is all the intelligent design they need. They will quickly realise that the universe is far from intelligently designed.
If I must keep my religion out of school ... then so too must you.Keep your religion out of schools. If you want your child to learn about religion, have them study an optional subject. But don't force it on other children.
I don't feel threatened in any way by your Atheistic religious ideas ... so I am quite prepared to have them taught to my children ... indeed, I want them taught to my children ... provided their deficiencies are also taught ... and my own beliefs as well.
'Sauce for the Goose' ... and all that!!!0 -
-
and how do you think it all came about, dead one?
If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Now you know roughly how I feel about the Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution myths (that, unlike ID, have no logical or evidential basis)
I do know that you are blissfully ignorant, and wilfully so. The Big Bang event is a traceable event. The evidence is there every single night if you bothered to look in the sky. Evolution is traceable through transitional fossils. This is very compelling evidence.
So where is your evidence for intelligent design? You're skating around the debate because you know you don't actually have compelling evidence.Aboigenesis and Evolution is the Atheistic Humanist 'origins story' for life ... the 'Big Bang' (or variations thereon) is their 'origins story' for the Universe.
It's not a story. The Big Bang and evolution are events which have scientific backing. The Big Bang through doppler shift and physics, evolution through transitional fossils examined at the very highest of levels, by well respected scientists.If I must keep my religion out of school ... then so too must you.
I don't have a religion. I lack a religion. I know you keep going around in circles on this purposefully, but it doesn't change the fact that a lack of belief in something does not make it a religion. Does your lack of belief in the flying spaghetti monster make it a religion?
Look at my posts - Look at my arguments. Then look at your lack of answers towards them. That should say it all.
Also - I never said you can't have religion in school. You can have it in religious education class, where students can learn about a vast array of religions if they so choose. But don't bring it into science class, because there is no scientific evidence for it. You will waste my child's time, and I won't allow it.I don't feel threatened in any way by your Atheistic religious ideas ... so I am quite prepared to have them taught to my children ... indeed, I want them taught to my children ... provided their deficiencies are also taught ... and my own beliefs as well.
'Sauce for the Goose' ... and all that!!!
There is no such thing as 'religious ideas' in atheism. It is a lack of belief, not a belief system. The sooner you get this, the better for all of us. Also - I have no problem with there being a religious education class in schools - so long as it is outside of science class. Find me evidence for it, and then I'd be happy to include it as part of science.0 -
-
came out of nothing......and how do you think it all came about, dead one?Thousands of transitional fossils and a wonderful 7understanding of DNA. I believe I already pointed this out.The fossil record reveals an absence of life forms in the lower two-thirds of the earth (Precambrian period). Then there is a sudden, abrupt explosion of advanced life forms documented in the fossil record. These Cambrian sedimentary deposits contain billions of fossils of highly developed life forms. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life have been found in Cambrian rocks. (Huse 1983)“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record that gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” (Elredge 1978)0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course Atheistic Humanism is a belief system ... in the non-existence of God ... and the many other things that follow on from that. Ye have got away with this ruse for far too long!!!well thats wrong. I've explained it multiple times that a lack of belief is not a belief system. clearly you can't comprehend someone not being religious so you keep repeating the same confused statement.
Ye guys are more religiously committed to your Atheism than most Theists that I know, are to their beliefs.
Another ruse, that ye have got away with!!!Once again, you presume all evolutionists are atheists. Another glaring error on your behalf. evolution and abiogenesis are part of the science realm, nothing else. It's not religious stories. Can you let that reality sink in and not start round the carousel once again?
Every orthodox Mono-theist believes that God created the Universe and all life ... either Directly or by a process of Divinely Directed Evolution.
Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution are therefore religious beliefs exclusively held by Materialists ... and they are therefore 'religious stories' of the Atheistic variety!!!
That is your religiously biased point of view ... you want your religious belief in Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution to be taught as fact to all children ... if that's not the ultimate in enforced proselytizing, for Atheism, I don't know what would be!!!ID/ creationism are religious, evolution/abiogenesis are science. Still failing to understand I see, You want religion in the science class, where it has no place.
I'm not religious either ... I believe in the Christian Faith ... but if you insist on defining my belief in the existence God as 'religion' ... then logically, your belief in the non-existence of God is also 'religion'.How dare I!! wanting kids to be taught science! outrageous!!:rolleyes:
I'm not religious. so all of that is just creationist waffle.
... if you want to brainwash your own children with a one-sided presentation of your own materialistic beliefs, as viewed through your own 'rose coloured glasses' ... that is your business ... but I draw the line when you want to subject Christian children to such brainwashing!!!
If the Atheists are in there ... then the Church should also be in there ... and the Church (i.e. the body of all Christians in the area) shouldn't be 'rolling over' and accepting every Materialist Myth that the minds of men can come up with to bolster their Atheism !!!Exactly, the church shouldn't be in the class room! glad we agree.
The real problem with the separation of religion and science is on the Materialist side of the house ... where ye have given 'scientific' status to your 'origins story' ... which is believed in by ye through faith alone ... and a very great faith at that!!!And we still have no evidence from you to back up your creation myth. just confused ramblings of someone who has a problem with science and religion being separate.0 -
The fossil record reveals an absence of life forms in the lower two-thirds of the earth (Precambrian period). Then there is a sudden, abrupt explosion of advanced life forms documented in the fossil record. These Cambrian sedimentary deposits contain billions of fossils of highly developed life forms. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life have been found in Cambrian rocks. (Huse 1983)
You are aware that this process occurred over 80 million years, right? I often hear this argument made by creationists. Which leads me to believe there is a strong misunderstanding about what the Cambrian explosion is.
There is nothing unusual about the Cambrian explosion, nor does it disprove evolution. Try again.0 -
So, You are aware that you aren't eye witness of this process occurred over 80 million years... Yet you believe in it and try your best to defend it..... isn't it what people call faith or religion........You are aware that this process occurred over 80 million years, right?
Likewise.... You also have circular arguments to defend your theories.... You take help of one theory to defend other.... and my of these theories contradict Physics.... Yet you believe in it....I often hear this argument made by creationists. Which leads me to believe there is a strong misunderstanding about what the Cambrian explosion is.
“Cambrian Explosion” “life’s big bang.” Please tell how it doesn't disprove evolution...There is nothing unusual about the Cambrian explosion, nor does it disprove evolution. Try again.0 -
Of course Atheistic Humanism is a belief system ... in the non-existence of God ... and the many other things that follow on from that. Ye have got away with this ruse for far too long!!!
Ye guys are more religiously committed to your Atheism than most Theists that I know, are to their beliefs.
Another ruse, that ye have got away with!!!
Any orthodox Mono-theist believes that God created the Universe and all life ... either Directly or by a process of Divinely Directed Evolution.
Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution are therefore religious beliefs exclusively held by Materialists ... and they are therefore 'religious stories' of the Atheistic variety!!!
That is your religiously biased point of view ... you want your religious belief in Abiogenesis and Materialistic Evolution to be taught as fact to all children ... if that's not the ultimate in enforce prosletysing, I don't know what would be!!!
I'm not religious either ... I believe in the Christian Faith ... but if you define my belief in the eistence God as 'religion' ... then logically, your belief in the non-existence of God is also 'religion'.
... if you want to brainwash your own children with a one-sided presentation of your own materialistic beliefs, as viewed through your own 'rose coloured glasses' ... that is your business ... but I draw the line when you want to subject Christian children to such brainwashing!!!
If the Atheists are in there ... then the Church should also be in there ... and it shouldn't be 'rolling over' and accepting every Materialist Myth that the minds of men can come up with to bolster their Atheism!!!
The real problem with the separation of religion and science is on the Materialist side of the house ... where ye have given 'scientific' status to your 'origins story' ... which is believed in by ye through faith alone ... and a very great faith at that!!!
still waiting on the evidence to back up your creation myth.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
So, You are aware that you aren't eye witness of this process occurred over 80 million years... Yet you believe in it and try your best to defend it..... isn't it what people call faith or religion........
Um, no. We have a very accurate dating system, where we can date the age of fossils. I don't have to be an eye-witness to prehistoric life, to understand the time-frame at which a species lived, or to understand the evolutionary time-frame of life. It is not faith, because there is 'evidence'. If there was no evidence, then it would be faith.Likewise.... You also have circular arguments to defend your theories.... You take help of one theory to defend other.... and my of these theories contradict Physics.... Yet you believe in it....
What theories exactly have I mentioned contradicted our understanding of physics?“Cambrian Explosion” “life’s big bang.” Please tell how it doesn't disprove evolution...
It doesn't disprove evolution, because it is a time period of 80 million years with which we can view through dated fossils, clear-cut evolution between species.
You seem to be under the impression that complicated life came out of nowhere. That is not the case. It morphed over a period of 80 million years. Quite a substantial about of time.0 -
The supposed Big Bang is not repeatedly observable ... and thus is strictly outside of operative science. Equally, who/what caused the Big Bang ... and whether there was an instantaneous 'inflation event' is also subject to scientific contention.I do know that you are blissfully ignorant, and wilfully so. The Big Bang event is a traceable event. The evidence is there every single night if you bothered to look in the sky. Evolution is traceable through transitional fossils. This is very compelling evidence.
The Atheists believe the Big Bang was a purely materialistic process ... while the Creation Scientists believe a Big Whisper created the Universe instantly and ex nihilo.
The vast quantities of Complex Functional Specified Information found in all life is definitive proof of Intelligent Design.So where is your evidence for intelligent design? You're skating around the debate because you know you don't actually have compelling evidence.
... Intelligent Design, of Divine proportions, is mathematically certain to have occurred ... and Divine Creation, either directly ... or by a process of Divinely directed evolution is held to have occurred by all Mono-theist religious leaders ... and Creation Scientists/ID proponents.It's not a story. The Big Bang and evolution are events which have scientific backing. The Big Bang through doppler shift and physics, evolution through transitional fossils examined at the very highest of levels, by well respected scientists.
I don't have a religion either ... but if you insist that my faith in the existence of God is a 'religion' ... then , your faith in the non-existence of God is also logically a 'religion' as well !!!I don't have a religion. I lack a religion. I know you keep going around in circles on this purposefully, but it doesn't change the fact that a lack of belief in something does not make it a religion. Does your lack of belief in the flying spaghetti monster make it a religion?
... and my belief in the non-existence of the 'flying spaghetti monster' that is Materialistic Evolutionism ... is both religiously and scientifically based!!!:)
It does indeed!!:)Look at my posts - Look at my arguments. Then look at your lack of answers towards them. That should say it all.
... and if the Atheists insist on bringing in their religously held 'origins stories' into science class you can expect oppsition from Thesists, especially when the obvious deficiencies of these religiously held ideas are not taught as well.Also - I never said you can't have religion in school. You can have it in religious education class, where students can learn about a vast array of religions if they so choose. But don't bring it into science class, because there is no scientific evidence for it. You will waste my child's time, and I won't allow it.
Whether you classify the 'origins stories' of Atheism and Mon-theism as 'religion', 'faith' or two sides of a 'science controversy' ... it should be equality of esteem all the way!!!There is no such thing as 'religious ideas' in atheism. It is a lack of belief, not a belief system. The sooner you get this, the better for all of us. Also - I have no problem with there being a religious education class in schools - so long as it is outside of science class. Find me evidence for it, and then I'd be happy to include it as part of science.
... and both ideas should be taught ... or not taught ... in science and/or religion classes ... as the school shall determine!!0 -
See buddy....Science claims to hold provisional truths..... and ......has science wrong before?.... the answer is yes.... You said you have very accurate dating system..... They are accurate only in present times....... science can’t prove things to be 100%...... How you can put complete trust on science....... and it is proved that science has been wrong before...... is it not evidence.... Like 60 years ago science says "Sun is stationery" because it has very accurate telescope to see....... Now the same science is saying "Sun isn't stationery"Um, no. We have a very accurate dating system, where we can date the age of fossils. I don't have to be an eye-witness to prehistoric life, to understand the time-frame at which a species lived, or to understand the evolutionary time-frame of life. It is not faith, because there is 'evidence'. If there was no evidence, then it would be faith.
I ain't talking about you... I am talking in general.... Evolutionist support their theories with theories.... and some of these theories violate physical laws... Like laws of thermodynamic or law of conservation of energy....What theories exactly have I mentioned contradicted our understanding of physics?0 -
If the CFSI in the AA sequence for one simple protein cannot be realistically expected to be spontaneously produced using all of the matter and evolutionist time in the supposed Big Bang Universe isn't enough proof for you that all life was created by an intelligence of Divine proportions ... I guess nothing will convince you!!!!still waiting on the evidence to back up your creation myth.
... but this still doesn't give you the right to teach your one-sided materialistically-biased 'origins stories' as 'scientific fact' to our children.
There are none so blind as he who will not see!!!0 -
If the CFSI in the AA sequence for one simple protein cannot be realistically expected to be spontaneously produced using all of the matter and evolutionist time in the supposed Big Bang Universe isn't enough proof for you that all life was created by an intelligence of Divine proportions ... I guess nothing will convince you!!!!
There are none so blind as he who will not see!!!
your opinion is not evidence. Please show some evidence to back up your claims.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Something for you to read over, JCIntricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.
But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.
The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells. The mitochondria soon became central to the cells’ function.
Mitochondria couldn’t have lasted in their new home without the help of a protein machine called TIM23, which delivers other proteins harvested from the cell’s body. Bacteria don’t possess TIM23, suggesting that it evolved in mitochondria. This seems to pose a cellular chicken-and-egg question: How could protein transport evolve when it was necessary to survive in the first place?
The essential paradox applies to other protein-transporting cell systems, providing disbelievers of evolution with a key part of their critique. As articulated by intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, “This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function or the system breaks down.”
According to evolutionary theory, however, cellular complexity is reducible. It requires only that existing components be repurposed, with inevitable mutations providing extra ingredients as needed. Flagella, the hairlike propellers used by bacteria to move, are one example of this. Their component parts are found throughout cells, performing other tasks.
Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.
“This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general,” write the researchers, led by molecular biologist Trevor Lithgow at Australia’s Monash University. “The complexity of these machines is not irreducible.”
When they analyzed the genomes of proteobacteria, the family that spawned the ancestors of mitochondria, Lithgow’s team found two of the protein parts used in mitochondria to make TIM23.
The parts are located on bacterial cell membranes, making them ideally positioned for TIM23’s eventual protein-delivering role. Only one other part, a molecule called LivH, would make a rudimentary protein-transporting machine — and LivH is commonly found in proteobacteria.
The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
“It hasn’t been possible up until this point to trace any of those proteins back to a bacterial ancestor,” said Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray, one of the researchers who originally described the origins of mitochondria, but was not involved in the new study. “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”
Wired.comIf you can read this, you're too close!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement