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.
the Law of Biogenesis does not support the evolution theory.
Nick: Exibit C
There's no such thing as the "Law of Biogenesis" unless you just made that up.
Quote:
tulegirl:
Mutations are random - nature doesn't "select" them.
Nick:
Feel free to define natural selection. Sorry tulegirl, but it's the environment that does the selecting, not the genetic mutations.
Quote:
tulegirl:
Mutations are rare - more so in higher organisms, and those occur randomly. When they do they are usually BAD or NEUTRAL mutations.
Nick:
First of all, most mutations are neutral. How often a mutation varies.
Quote:
tulegirl:
How often do you see a GOOD mutation? Nobel laureate, Hermann J. Muller said (paraphrased), that 99% of mutations are harmful in someway and we should expect that since they are accidental occurrences.
Nick:
Nice anthromorphization of evolution. mutations aren't "accidental." Nature does not "intend" to do things. Perhaps you should learn what the theory of evolution is before you present more erroneous claims?
Originally Posted by ParkTwain In my opinion the way that some people regard new technology as the answer to all our problems could be seen as religious.
Nick:
So you say as you type on your computer that solved the problem of being able to communicate to people that are thousands of miles away.
So you say as you type on your computer that solved the problem of being able to communicate to people that are thousands of miles away.
Go back to the Neolithic Stone Age,
Nick
LoL Nick, I see no difference between you and a religious high (tech)-priest who is willing to sacrifice heathens in the name of science (or every other religion or philosophy you support).
You just prove my point that most scientist believe that the end justifies the means and that only they are the ones to judge if this is right or not.
To hell with everyone who thinks otherwise, right?
Cheers,
Tricky D, the pragmatist and not a blind idealist.
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus LoL Nick, I see no difference between you and a religious high (tech)-priest who is willing to sacrifice heathens in the name of science (or every other religion or philosophy you support).
Nick:
Really? All's I did was point out the irony of your implied criticism of technology and all the while using technology to do it.
Quote:
Tricky D
You just prove my point that most scientist believe that the end justifies the means and that only they are the ones to judge if this is right or not.
Nick:
I'm not sure I follow. How exactly does me pointing out the irony of your misguided or unclear criticism of the practical application of science imply that the ends justifies the means?
If I claimed that it was okay for the god of Christianity to have an innocent person put to death (his alleged son) in order that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life then I would be implying that the ends justifies the means. I did not.
Quote:
Tricky D:
To hell with everyone who thinks otherwise, right?
Nick:
Wrong.
Quote:
Tricky D:
Cheers,
Tricky D, the pragmatist and not a blind idealist.
Because to me a fishing rod already is technology.
The difference between modern technology and 'old' technology is that modern technology inherently wages war on nature (because this is what modern humans do). Modern man believes that he can treat nature any which way he likes (just like most Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that this is their 'God' given right).
For example:
A wooden boomerang is natural technology that does not go against nature and a cigarette is modern technology that does.
For example:
A wooden boomerang is natural technology that does not go against nature and a cigarette is modern technology that does.
Burning organic matter while it is being held in one's hands is anti-nature? You can certainly think of a better example than that, such as perhaps strip mining of coal seams in Appalachia?
Burning organic matter while it is being held in one's hands is anti-nature?
My definition of nature does not have anything to do with what other people call nature.
Smoking a cigarette is a form of addiction which is not good for humans. For instance it affects pregnancy in an unhealthy way.
For that reason alone I define the making and selling of nicotene cigarettes as being against (human) nature.
Nickopernicus:
Well, if you're tired of it being called psuedo science, then perhaps you should provide some evidence that it is not? Feel free to quote some ID (Intelligent Design) or Creationalist literature that's been peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. Feel free to quote some Creationalist literature that's been developed into technology. I won't hold my breath. Until you do, you can look forward to people like me accusing Creationalism to be psuedo-scientifc garbage with a religious agenda. I've no problem with religion per se; it's when it masquerades as science that I tend to get a tad bit irritated.
-----------
Try the MRI that was invented by Raymond Damadian a Creationist and Scientist.
Find me genuine scientific research to back up a 6,000 year old earth model. Kent Hovind or AiG don't count.
Why Don't Kent Hovind or AiG count? Because you are claiming them to be non-scientific, or because the arguments are too hard to over come? It doesn't seem logical to say prove it, but don't use this or that? Please explain why they can't be used????
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.
In my opinion the way that some people regard new technology as the answer to all our problems could be seen as religious.
LoL Nick, I see no difference between you and a religious high (tech)-priest who is willing to sacrifice heathens in the name of science (or every other religion or philosophy you support).
Because to me a fishing rod already is technology.
Modern man believes that he can treat nature any which way he likes (just like most Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that this is their 'God' given right).
