The More We Learn, the Less Room There is for Evolution

[sealybobo]

Yes, sealybobo, to be completely honest with you, i'm leaning more toward people who want to get to the bottom of things rather than throw up hands in the air, saying "God created us, we have all the answers we do not need to ask questions anymore" I love science ,my hero is Neil Tyson, passionate educator (I guees, you know him) However, I realise thar scientists do not have all the answers and have barely scratched the surface so I don't want to take sides. There's a thing or two that religion can teach a person especially when they feel lost. Besides, a lot of humans need to have someone up in the sky watching over them. If you take that away from them, they lose any hope for a brighter future.

Science is in a way also a form of religion, the only difference is facts are your GOD

I disagree that people need religion. Some need "something" and they find it in Religion and yes it does make a lot of people happy but I don't think this ignorance is good for people or is it necessary. I think without it people would be just fine. Maybe even better. Maybe they wouldn't need religion if they weren't brainwashed from birth. Most of us secular agnostic atheists don't feel guilty about sin after all we are only human.

I wouldn't rip it away from people who have it and want it but I don't think people need it and I don't think it should be a requirement for running for president.

By the way, the point you made is number 5 at my favorite site Why there is no god

People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things.
Argument from adverse consequences .

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

sealbobo finally confirms that he "already knew that" not all GOP are theists.

He makes a silly comment with "we all know the kind of theists the Republicans pray on."

sealy is concerned others think he may be going to hell.

Why is any of that important, sealy?

I'm not following you whatsoever Jake. Why all of the sudden are you defending Republicans. Let me guess you believe in god too?

We do all know the kind of theists Republicans pray on. Do you think gays are evil and going to hell? Then you are not the kind of theist that Republicans pray on. Do you worry about transgenders going into the girls bathroom? Then you are not the kind. Are you worried about abortion being murder? Then you are not the type.

What is your problem today Jake? Did I hurt your theistic feelings? Are you finding yourself agreeing with conservatives today? Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, sealybobo, to be completely honest with you, i'm leaning more toward people who want to get to the bottom of things rather than throw up hands in the air, saying "God created us, we have all the answers we do not need to ask questions anymore" I love science ,my hero is Neil Tyson, passionate educator (I guees, you know him) However, I realise thar scientists do not have all the answers and have barely scratched the surface so I don't want to take sides. There's a thing or two that religion can teach a person especially when they feel lost. Besides, a lot of humans need to have someone up in the sky watching over them. If you take that away from them, they lose any hope for a brighter future.

Science is in a way also a form of religion, the only difference is facts are your GOD

Imagine someone in another country approaches you and tells you that god visited his ancestors and told them things that would get you into heaven. All you had to do is worship this thing, believe in this thing, and you would go to heaven. Disbelieve and you'll go to hell. But their story is unbelievable. So for me, no amount of guilt and no promise is going to get me to believe something that isn't believable. A god would not make this the test. A cult would though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sealbobo finally confirms that he "already knew that" not all GOP are theists.

He makes a silly comment with "we all know the kind of theists the Republicans pray on."

sealy is concerned others think he may be going to hell.

Why is any of that important, sealy?

I'm not following you whatsoever Jake. Why all of the sudden are you defending Republicans. Let me guess you believe in god too?

We do all know the kind of theists Republicans pray on. Do you think gays are evil and going to hell? Then you are not the kind of theist that Republicans pray on. Do you worry about transgenders going into the girls bathroom? Then you are not the kind. Are you worried about abortion being murder? Then you are not the type.

What is your problem today Jake? Did I hurt your theistic feelings? Are you finding yourself agreeing with conservatives today? Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Yeah, you follow me completely, sealy. I don't care if you are an atheist. That does not affect me. Your concern about theists is stupid and anti-American. You have a right to believe or not, to follow your confirmation bias just the same as any believer. End of story.

 

[sealybobo]

sealbobo finally confirms that he "already knew that" not all GOP are theists.

He makes a silly comment with "we all know the kind of theists the Republicans pray on."

sealy is concerned others think he may be going to hell.

Why is any of that important, sealy?

I'm not following you whatsoever Jake. Why all of the sudden are you defending Republicans. Let me guess you believe in god too?

We do all know the kind of theists Republicans pray on. Do you think gays are evil and going to hell? Then you are not the kind of theist that Republicans pray on. Do you worry about transgenders going into the girls bathroom? Then you are not the kind. Are you worried about abortion being murder? Then you are not the type.

What is your problem today Jake? Did I hurt your theistic feelings? Are you finding yourself agreeing with conservatives today? Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Yeah, you follow me completely, sealy. I don't care if you are an atheist. That does not affect me. Your concern about theists is stupid and anti-American. You have a right to believe or not, to follow your confirmation bias just the same as any believer. End of story.

Did I say differently? I don't care if someone is a theists either, other than I mind the stupidity that USUALLY comes with it. For example people who vote for Trump because Republicans are the religious party. I mind that stupidity. But do I defend people's right to be that kind of stupid? Absolutely. Please also defend my right to free speech when I call that stupidity out.

I know there are lots of good theists out there. You and my brother being two of them. He understands abortion is necessary and he doesn't think non christians are going to hell. I think they call your form of Christianity benign.

1. gentle; kindly.
   "her face was calm and benign"
   synonyms: kindly, kind, warmhearted, good-natured, friendly, warm, affectionate, agreeable, genial, congenial, cordial, approachable, tenderhearted, gentle, sympathetic, compassionate, caring, well disposed, benevolent
   "a benign grandfatherly role"
2. 2.
   MEDICINE
   (of a disease) not harmful in effect: in particular, (of a tumor) not malignant.
   synonyms: harmless, nonmalignant, noncancerous;
   benignant
   "a benign tumor"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you. And there atheists benign and evil. I will always defend your right to free speech, and I will compliment (as I do) when I agree or not (as I do) when I don't.

 

[peaceful warrior]

I disagree that people need religion. Some need "something" and they find it in Religion and yes it does make a lot of people happy but I don't think this ignorance is good for people or is it necessary. I think without it people would be just fine. Maybe even better. Maybe they wouldn't need religion if they weren't brainwashed from birth. Most of us secular agnostic atheists don't feel guilty about sin after all we are only human.

All I wanted to say is this. We are all ignorant including THE BRIGHTEST scientists. But what is worse, we define ignorance levels using our own limited understanding of cosmos.

We have no legitimate frame of reference. We just know that we know nothing or very very little, we cannot even compare the value of OUR scientific discoveries with that of , let's say, an alien life form that is millions of years ahead of us in terms of its techology, science, medicine.

Probably they do exist, but they have little regard for us ahd have no intention of contacting us becuase our civilization simply isn't intelligent enough to have any meaningful conversations with them, so they have just chosen to ignore us.

Besides, our dna, the dna of the pinnacle of evolution, is almost identical to that of the shimp. Just a little bit more than 1 percent difference in our respective genomes is what makes us human and not-so-bright shimps and is behind all our achievements .

Whould you really want to talk with someone who cannot possibly understand a word you say? I don't.

So no one knows if God exists or not. You may say that god believers have to prove the existence of the almighty being. But why? They do believe and that's enough for them. If you want to prove that they are mistaken, the burden of proof lies on you, not on them AND VICE VERSA.

But as of now, scientists cannot really debunk "God created us all" theory, they do not have enough data, for crying out loud, they do not even know for sure if their most prominent theories are 100% correct. They have just ONE planet, ONE carbon- based life form, one widely-accepted theory explaining the existence of life on Earth and they still have not found other more scientifically superior space race out there that might advise them on how to solve our current zero type civilization problems.

In other words, you put too much stock into what the ignorant scientisis of just one species say and judge the religious views of the same ignorant species by that . Do you really think that if you use this approach the answer to your question can possibly be correct and you are in a position to judge who is truly ignorant and who is not?

 

[sealybobo]

sealbobo finally confirms that he "already knew that" not all GOP are theists.

He makes a silly comment with "we all know the kind of theists the Republicans pray on."

sealy is concerned others think he may be going to hell.

Why is any of that important, sealy?

I'm not following you whatsoever Jake. Why all of the sudden are you defending Republicans. Let me guess you believe in god too?

We do all know the kind of theists Republicans pray on. Do you think gays are evil and going to hell? Then you are not the kind of theist that Republicans pray on. Do you worry about transgenders going into the girls bathroom? Then you are not the kind. Are you worried about abortion being murder? Then you are not the type.

What is your problem today Jake? Did I hurt your theistic feelings? Are you finding yourself agreeing with conservatives today? Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Yeah, you follow me completely, sealy. I don't care if you are an atheist. That does not affect me. Your concern about theists is stupid and anti-American. You have a right to believe or not, to follow your confirmation bias just the same as any believer. End of story.

My concerns about theists are stupid???

Religion Plays Big Role in Bush Presidency

Republicans Use Religion as a Political Tool | HuffPost

Conservatives, Wake Up: The Republican Party Uses Religion To Manipulate You

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...ndidates-count-on-religion-to-convince-voters

Republicans Using Religion, Lies And Scare Tactics To Manipulate Voters

Maybe religion is also making you a little stupid Jake?

 

[sealybobo]

I disagree that people need religion. Some need "something" and they find it in Religion and yes it does make a lot of people happy but I don't think this ignorance is good for people or is it necessary. I think without it people would be just fine. Maybe even better. Maybe they wouldn't need religion if they weren't brainwashed from birth. Most of us secular agnostic atheists don't feel guilty about sin after all we are only human.

All I wanted to say is this. We are all ignorant including THE BRIGHTEST scientists. But what is worse, we define ignorance levels using our own limited understanding of cosmos.

We have no legitimate frame of reference. We just know that we know nothing or very very little, we cannot even compare the value of OUR scientific discoveries with that of , let's say, an alien life form that is millions of years ahead of us in terms of its techology, science, medicine.

Probably they do exist, but they have little regard for us ahd have no intention of contacting us becuase our civilization simply isn't intelligent enough to have any meaningful conversations with them, so they have just chosen to ignore us.

Besides, our dna, the dna of the pinnacle of evolution, is almost identical to that of the shimp. Just a little bit more than 1 percent difference in our respective genomes is what makes us human and not-so-bright shimps and is behind all our achievements .

Whould you really want to talk with someone who cannot possibly understand a word you say? I don't.

So no one knows if God exists or not. You may say that god believers have to prove the existence of the almighty being. But why? They do believe and that's enough for them. If you want to prove that they are mistaken, the burden of proof lies on you, not on them AND VICE VERSA.

But as of now, scientists cannot really debunk "God created us all" theory, they do not have enough data, for crying out loud, they do not even know for sure if their most prominent theories are 100% correct. They have just ONE planet, ONE carbon- based life form, one widely-accepted theory explaining the existence of life on Earth and they still have not found more intelligent creatures out there who might advise them on how to solve our current zero type civilization problems.

In other words, you put too much stock into what the ignorant scientisis of just one species say and judge the religious views of the same ignorant species by that . Do you really think that the answer can possibly be correct?

All I know is I like what I hear with science and I don't like what I hear from religions. Ever see the Cosmos? Great series both 1 and 2. I like admitting we don't know and keep looking for answers. To most scientists they don't even discuss god because it has nothing to do with anything relevant. And yes I do understand we know very little. But what we do know we have found through science and the scientific method.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment.

The scientific method is a continuous process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.

 

[sealybobo]

And we are in the science and technology forum, so forgive me if I attack the creation story or genesis for having absolutely zero basis in reality.

 

[sealybobo]

Thank you. And there atheists benign and evil. I will always defend your right to free speech, and I will compliment (as I do) when I agree or not (as I do) when I don't.

Just the fact that these asswipes are denying evolution. Of course if the same scientist uses the same science to come up with a cure based on DNA, a theist will be glad to take that medicine based on "science" And if they are given DNA evidence in court they have no problem using it to convict someone of a crime. They understand and believe science then but when it comes to something that challenges their religions they can't

 

[PK1]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

"The More We Learn, the Less Room There is for Evolution"

Wow, another Scientific ignoramus. You cite an excellent NYT article and you come up with that stupid thread title?
Clearly, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, or you do not understand what science is all about.

Your statement "now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose" is not accurate, just like we "know" what dark matter/energy is ... NOT!

BTW, have you figured out what purpose your nipples have, and I am referring to male nipples.

 

[sealybobo]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

"The More We Learn, the Less Room There is for Evolution"

Wow, another Scientific ignoramus. You cite an excellent NYT article and you come up with that stupid thread title?
Clearly, your reading comprehension is severely lacking, or you do not understand what science is all about.

Your statement "now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose" is not accurate, just like we "know" what dark matter/energy is ... NOT!

BTW, have you figured out what purpose your nipples have, and I am referring to male nipples.

They are an erogenous zone.

I agree with you. His conclusion is retarded. Nothing he says debunks evolution. I think he's a troll using a provocative thread title.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

Yes, evolution is obviously less plausible than thinking we were created by a magical being nobody has ever seen nor has proof of ever existing

 

[sealybobo]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

Yes, evolution is obviously less plausible than thinking we were created by a magical being nobody has ever seen nor has proof of ever existing

And I'm sorry but when we ask for evidence and all they can produce is an ancient story book from a religion that was once a cult? And to say a god would punish anyone who doesn't believe their ancestors and priests? It's laughable.

 

[sealybobo]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

Our Island Universe

Our Island Universe is a 90 second look at new discoveries in our understanding of what lies beyond the horizon and what it means to us here on earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

Still no empirical evidence of any species turning into another species, either.

And you are completely wrong. Very detailed evolution of horses in the fossils of the John Day formation. You need to learn more about what we have in fossils. Especially those from the Karoo.

 

[SixFoot]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

Still no empirical evidence of any species turning into another species, either.

And you are completely wrong. Very detailed evolution of horses in the fossils of the John Day formation. You need to learn more about what we have in fossils. Especially those from the Karoo.

 

[Old Rocks]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

Still no empirical evidence of any species turning into another species, either.

Well it's already happened millions of years ago. The atmosphere was different back then. More carbon dioxide or monoxide. Point is science has an answer for that.

What about a duck billed web feet platipus? Seems stuck in the middle, no?

And OK, how about this? They found a new bacteria at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Maybe there was a mammal bacteria, bird, reptile, amphibians. Maybe they were all started separately. Still they all crawled out of the water and became what they are today.

If not, how did the first giraffe get here? Were they babies to start off? How did they get here?

I've never doubted the possibility. It seems logical that different sites containing the same organic materials could produce chains of information with similarities between the different offshoots.

We can observe a Finch evolve into a different kind of Finch, but we will never see one evolve into a turtle. Until a species becomes one not of its own kind, the answers we have come up with are lacking at best in my book.

There are fossils in the Karoo that clearly show the evolution of the therapsids to mammals.

http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/jspui/...1997.V33.GOW.KAROO FOSSILS MAMMAL ORIGINS.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Well it's already happened millions of years ago. The atmosphere was different back then. More carbon dioxide or monoxide. Point is science has an answer for that.

What about a duck billed web feet platipus? Seems stuck in the middle, no?

And OK, how about this? They found a new bacteria at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Maybe there was a mammal bacteria, bird, reptile, amphibians. Maybe they were all started separately. Still they all crawled out of the water and became what they are today.

If not, how did the first giraffe get here? Were they babies to start off? How did they get here?

I've never doubted the possibility. It seems logical that different sites containing the same organic materials could produce chains of information with similarities between the different offshoots.

We can observe a Finch evolve into a different kind of Finch, but we will never see one evolve into a turtle. Until a species becomes one not of its own kind, the answers we have come up with are lacking at best in my book.

I did a quick search for how all living things are related and there is just so much evidence against you're and Ben Carson's position. It's amazing he passed doctor school

Who the heck is Ben Carson?

Black guy who ran for GOP. I googled the question about one species turning into another and he said that nonsense. There's so much evidence we are related.

And again it doesn't matter because you must believe all life on land originally lived in the water. If not explain to me how the first land animals got started.

Oh, that guy. lol I've been unplugged for a while.

Anyway, none of that matters to me if we can't pinpoint the actual origin of anything. It's all to be taken with a healthy dose of objective skepticism and a desire to continue learning, even after I think I've found the "correct" answer. That's the point of science if you ask me.

Yes, but denying overwhelming evidence is not the point of science. There are all too many fossils where we have found very good transition specimens . And more being found as we post.