Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, the video is unconvincing when trying to reconcile intelligent design and evolution. It should have stopped a couple of minutes earlier than it did.
There is no such thing as intelligent design, so I don't know why you would think you could find it on a legitimate educational site....Duh, to you too.
Similarly our devout friends on the other side of the debating aisle must of needs Pooh-Poooooohh anything we offer them, especially the really effective proofy stuff our side holds in spades. Yup; I'll imagine that kind of information and deduction really gets 'em way down deep in their supposedly secure (but actually real fragile) spiritual craw, where no amount of Christian Pepto-Bismol can offer real relief. Theyz just gotta suffer the heartburn and misery, but on their own. How sad.
__________________________________
And just like Evolution, it was dismissed by those with an axe to grind, and their own dead-on-the-vine but already outdated concepts to protect. So a conspiracy was launched to kill it off, and many dud-heads in Canadian politics were paid off to keep their mouths shut. Of course, the Arrow didn't have one thing Evolution does have: endless reams of facts, irrefutable proofs and modern documentation to prove itself. Thus, as we predict, the naysayers constantly conspire, dishonestly, to kill Evo-Facts off. Hard to do though.
So.....
The Difference between the Arrow and Evolution? (Eyuuu- Eyyuuuu!!!!Tell us, Rifleman! OH PLEASE... Tell Us! What's the difference?)
Just for the benefit of those dedicated to finding and discussing the truth: I and others here have, with persistence, often asked proponents of Creationism, those who deny Evolution, abiogenesis, for example, to simply "prove up" their case.
I'd expect, in any intelligent debate, that these folks would have the honesty to provide us with their own well- thought-out idealogies, to substantiate their "arcane" thinking with an honest back up.
Be well aware, Moderator cut: edit that it's more than easy now to illuminate the depths (or, in this cade... the shallows...) of your intellectutal and scientific litercy. Or, more directly put: of plagiarizing without citation. Example:
A recent thread post (that one, sadly, is now closed, and just when we were getting down to the nutz'n'bolts of it too...)
The individual related some (he hoped...) "astounding, amazing & proofy" information that:
"If one stretched out a strand of DNA from the oldest and most basic organism known to man, " A Bacterium", it would be almost 1,000 times longer than the diameter of the bacterium itself. Its DNA pattern is about 4 million blocks long."
Woo-Hoo, huh? Thus, this was supposed to be "proof" (a word this Moderator cut: "individual" tosses around without any justification, only that he is personally Awed by It All...)
Well: if one simply outlines and then copies one of these sorts of phrases, and then places them into the Google Search Box, (& hits Enter...) the true origins become clear.
In this particular case, the bit of knowledge the individual was trying to astound us with, after categorically refusing any prior requests to show us his true educational underpinnings and depth of understanding of the SM (Scientific Method), modern biology and genetics, and of his idea of "Proof" on literally scores of his past denialist posts, was to simply C&P from:
A vacant answer, devoid of any valid and well-supported position. And hardly from a scientifically credible site, wouldn't you agree? (I mean, do go ahead and read some of it! It truly IS astounding, I will grand you that, but hardly in the way this Mighty peson had intended! But it is also one of his prized source sites, so there you have it!
Example: this bogus and biased site then goes on to categorically claim:
"There is absolutely zero scientific evidence of the existence of any organisms between the supposed event of abiogenesis and bacteria. This is the biggest missing link of all. There is absolutely no evidence any such organism is alive today or was ever alive in the past."
Uhmm...well.... sorry, this is an outrightfabrication, but would you believe any other version of fantasy-think? Nope.)
And So: Friends and trusted readers: just keep this very useful tool in mind: check them out and see if they actually have a mind of their own.
And... It's back to you, Big M...)
Here's what I would like YOU to answer for me rifle 'ol Buddy---Why would you waste your time banging your head against the wall, debating with people that would be so intentionally ignorant to deny evolution?
Like "The Captain" said in Cool Hand Luke---"What we've got here, is a failure to communicate...some men you just can't reach".
You are so intellectually gifted, so brilliant, and have so many decades of background (and it seems, you are otherwise very sensible)...why expend even a speck of your mental energy going round and round with that lot, when you KNOW ahead of time exactly how it's going to turn out?
But I guess, better you than me...I've no "stomach" for those kind of debates...it messes up my constitution, and gets me all tweaked out with a totally negative vibe.
Well, let me ask you, Goldenrule...why are you hanging around here, since you seem to see nothing but futility in the discussion? This is not merely a rhetorical question, but is intended to give an answer.
As a muslim I dont reject the whole theory of evolution , It does not conflict with our religion in many ways .
Our main objection is about the process of a complete transformation from one specie to another different one because the qualities that acquired by the environment and climate etc .. can not be included in the composition of the cell therefore it can not be inherited to the next generation .
"Qualities gained can not be included in the composition of the cell ..."
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 09-22-2011 at 04:52 AM..
Yep. The old 'We accept what we can't very well deny - evolution within species, but we deny that one species can change into another.'
Why is that? What is so difficult to accept about one species diverging within the species so they look different and act different and are a different colour and size and the process going on until they are so different that they are no longer genetically compatible even if they can still mate? Why does the process have to have some kind of arbitrary limit?
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yep. The old 'We accept what we can't very well deny - evolution within species, but we deny that one species can change into another.
Why is that? What is so difficult to accept about one species diverging within the species so they look different and act different and are a different colour and size and the process going on until they are so different that they are no longer genetically compatible even if they can still mate? Why does the process have to have some kind of arbitrary limit?
In regards of your Intro ...
It is scientifically known that genes are responsible for building proteins & characteristics heredity .
That is why they can not inherit the new qualities and acquired behavioral patterns to subsequent generations .
So when the monkey's body shape or skin start to changes due to food or sun light for example , The monkey can not inherit this new acquires characteristics to his descendant because it is not found in the genetic structure .
Therefore, the monkey will remain a monkey even after a billion year .
I hope that I explained well .
As a muslim I dont reject the whole theory of evolution , It does not conflict with our religion in many ways .
Our main objection is about the process of a complete transformation from one specie to another different one because the qualities that acquired by the environment and climate etc .. can not be included in the composition of the cell therefore it can not be inherited to the next generation .
"Qualities gained can not be included in the composition of the cell ..."
Where is this quote from? As written it is obviously wrong but I wonder what the rest of it says.
In regards of your Intro ...
It is scientifically known that genes are responsible for building proteins & characteristics heredity .
That is why they can not inherit the new qualities and acquired behavioral patterns to subsequent generations .
So when the monkey's body shape or skin start to changes due to food or sun light for example , The monkey can not inherit this new acquires characteristics to his descendant because it is not found in the genetic structure .
Therefore, the monkey will remain a monkey even after a billion year .
I hope that I explained well .
If this is what evolution required no one else would believe it either. Fortunately what you've posted is (at best) a horrible misunderstanding of the science involved. Changes don't happen because of the environment, changes happen due to reproduction being imperfect and the most successful offspring are more likely to pass along their genes. You have the process almost exactly backwards - pretty typical since if creationists actually understood evolution they wouldn't be creationists anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Long Live The Unkillable!
