Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

Science isn't here for morals, dunno why people think that.




What about math? Does denying 2+2=4 make someone more moral the way denying evolution does in some people's minds?

Really ? A man of science shouldn't be concerned with honesty and integrity ? They're only gonna shape the minds of our children.

The scientific method isn't concerned with morality, scientists are humans so sure it's great for them to be moral.


However when a fact needs found I'd rather have the best scientist who's an asshole research and experiment than a nice scientist who isn't as smart.


Now when it comes to babysitting my future kids or teaching orphans right from wrong no that's not the choice I'd make.

Are you saying scientist are not affected by their views when trying to explaining evidence ? So why would you want an s.o.b explaining the evidence ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really ? A man of science shouldn't be concerned with honesty and integrity ? They're only gonna shape the minds of our children.

The scientific method isn't concerned with morality, scientists are humans so sure it's great for them to be moral.


However when a fact needs found I'd rather have the best scientist who's an asshole research and experiment than a nice scientist who isn't as smart.


Now when it comes to babysitting my future kids or teaching orphans right from wrong no that's not the choice I'd make.

Are you saying scientist are not affected by their views when trying to explaining evidence ? So why would you want an s.o.b explaining the evidence ?

2 things, 1 I'll never know the majority of scientists character because I'll never know them personally, 2 how well someone is educated and their experience in the field has nothing to do with their character.


If I'm going to have life threatening heart surgery give me the asshole who's the best heart surgeon in the world rather than the nice guy who's 50/50 to do it right, any rational person would agree with that and that has to do with medical science.

 

[FurthurBB]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

 

[FurthurBB]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

Science is never about proving anything and a theory in science is not at all the same as a general theory that someone has. A theory has much evidence to back it up. Evolution as a theory has not only the most evidence behind it of any scientific theory, but next to electrical theory has the most practical use.

 

[FurthurBB]

Show me some examples of your "hard" evidence.

The thing about Chrsitianity in regards to creation, we don't question the Word of God. We accept it on faith. Much like the faith you hold on the "theory" of evolution.

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

I am sorry, but most of this is just plain wrong. Also, because of many chemical theories that can be easily tested that is why it is most likely the same chemical reactions we see today that brought all of the chemical reactions together in the first place. Why add things that are just not necessary to the equation?

 

[FurthurBB]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Since we can all see the eye in many different states of complexity a better question is why would anyone believe it is too complex to evolve slowly over time? See, your arguments do not even take much logic to refute.

 

[FurthurBB]

All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.

Why? Exactly.

Did you read the excerpt?

That's the whole theory of evolution...random mutation passed on via natural selection.

If a random mutation serves no purpose, it has no advantage.

No advantage, no selection.

So you're left with dumb luck...over and over again.

Well, I can see the problem that you are having with understanding the theory. Mutations are just a natural part of every cell and add or rearrange genetic information. The mutations have to exist already to be selectable. When the mutations first arise they are either benign or sometimes even detrimental, like the sickle cell allele. Later they become beneficial because of some change in the environment and very rarely they are just beneficial to begin with. Now bacteria and some cancer cells can do spontaneous mutagenesis, which is a little complicated to explain and is more like what you are thinking about. They are dying because they cannot grow, so they replicate their DNA with an error prone enzyme that causes lots of mutation. If one of the mutations can help them grow in the environment they live and if one cannot they die. See single celled organisms can do this because they have a low genetic load, multicellular organisms cannot because they already have a huge genetic load.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The scientific method isn't concerned with morality, scientists are humans so sure it's great for them to be moral.


However when a fact needs found I'd rather have the best scientist who's an asshole research and experiment than a nice scientist who isn't as smart.


Now when it comes to babysitting my future kids or teaching orphans right from wrong no that's not the choice I'd make.

Are you saying scientist are not affected by their views when trying to explaining evidence ? So why would you want an s.o.b explaining the evidence ?

2 things, 1 I'll never know the majority of scientists character because I'll never know them personally, 2 how well someone is educated and their experience in the field has nothing to do with their character.


If I'm going to have life threatening heart surgery give me the asshole who's the best heart surgeon in the world rather than the nice guy who's 50/50 to do it right, any rational person would agree with that and that has to do with medical science.

How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is an ass ? How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is not a man of faith ? Have you noticed how biased you are ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

I don't placate. Look the documented evolution is not macro- evolution,the only documented evolution is micro- evolution. Please don't try to do what others have done and post micro-evolution as your proof for macro. We have already covered that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scientist can may continue to be atheists.. Funny most Dr. Believe in God.
No mathematical equation will ever determine the truth.

Blues

Most Doctors Have no problem with detecting designand admitting what it is.

Blanket statements impossible to prove aren't gonna get us anywhere, and I certainly think what you said probably isn't correct.

Drock, with my recent medical issues I have seen a lot of doctors from cardiologists TO neurologists and that is always a question for me to them is the body a product of design or evolution.I have not come across ONE that will admit that the human body is a product of random chance. Everyone Doctor I have asked gave an emphatic yes to design.

I'm not saying some of them might be o.k. with evolution but I have not met one yet.

 

[FurthurBB]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

I don't placate. Look the documented evolution is not macro- evolution,the only documented evolution is micro- evolution. Please don't try to do what others have done and post micro-evolution as your proof for macro. We have already covered that.

You are confusing the terms. Macroevolution just means above the species level and we have observed speciation. Also, macroevoltuion is just a lot of microevolution so evidence of microevolution with predictions that continuously prove correct is evidence of macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

Let's be honest here, it goes both ways.

 

[FurthurBB]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

Let's be honest here, it goes both ways.

Not for me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Are you saying scientist are not affected by their views when trying to explaining evidence ? So why would you want an s.o.b explaining the evidence ?

2 things, 1 I'll never know the majority of scientists character because I'll never know them personally, 2 how well someone is educated and their experience in the field has nothing to do with their character.


If I'm going to have life threatening heart surgery give me the asshole who's the best heart surgeon in the world rather than the nice guy who's 50/50 to do it right, any rational person would agree with that and that has to do with medical science.

How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is an ass ? How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is not a man of faith ? Have you noticed how biased you are ?

I didn't say a single word about the surgeon's faith, it was simply a hypothetical of a situation where 2 surgeons and their abilities/character are the variables.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

Science is never about proving anything and a theory in science is not at all the same as a general theory that someone has. A theory has much evidence to back it up. Evolution as a theory has not only the most evidence behind it of any scientific theory, but next to electrical theory has the most practical use.

You can't be more wrong.

Science is about truth in research, to the best of our ability. Yes, Micro-evolution is clearly documented,no,Macro-evolution has never been documented no matter what you have been taught.

 

[Youwerecreated]

2 things, 1 I'll never know the majority of scientists character because I'll never know them personally, 2 how well someone is educated and their experience in the field has nothing to do with their character.


If I'm going to have life threatening heart surgery give me the asshole who's the best heart surgeon in the world rather than the nice guy who's 50/50 to do it right, any rational person would agree with that and that has to do with medical science.

How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is an ass ? How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is not a man of faith ? Have you noticed how biased you are ?

I didn't say a single word about the surgeon's faith, it was simply a hypothetical of a situation where 2 surgeons and their abilities/character are the variables.

Alright, I take back what I said,but answer one thing for me.

Then why would you assume the best surgeon would be an ass ? what were you inferring ?

 

[FurthurBB]

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

Science is never about proving anything and a theory in science is not at all the same as a general theory that someone has. A theory has much evidence to back it up. Evolution as a theory has not only the most evidence behind it of any scientific theory, but next to electrical theory has the most practical use.

You can't be more wrong.

Science is about truth in research, to the best of our ability. Yes, Micro-evolution is clearly documented,no,Macro-evolution has never been documented no matter what you have been taught.

So, you want me to ignore what I know about science being a scientist and ignore what I have seen with my own eyes and believe you? That would be dishonest and I am never dishonest. I have witnessed speciation, macroevolution by definition and science is never about truth, it can only approach truth like a tangent line approaches zero. though, I understand it is difficult to understand these things when you have a misconception already.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

Let's be honest here, it goes both ways.

Not for me.

Me neither,but I can get a little hot when one is deliberately disengenuous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is never about proving anything and a theory in science is not at all the same as a general theory that someone has. A theory has much evidence to back it up. Evolution as a theory has not only the most evidence behind it of any scientific theory, but next to electrical theory has the most practical use.

You can't be more wrong.

Science is about truth in research, to the best of our ability. Yes, Micro-evolution is clearly documented,no,Macro-evolution has never been documented no matter what you have been taught.

So, you want me to ignore what I know about science being a scientist and ignore what I have seen with my own eyes and believe you? That would be dishonest and I am never dishonest. I have witnessed speciation, macroevolution by definition and science is never about truth, it can only approach truth like a tangent line approaches zero. though, I understand it is difficult to understand these things when you have a misconception already.

I have seen it to,I did mutation research for many years and that is why I am so against Neo Darwinism. Not true, we can get to truth that is just silly say we can't. There are some things we will never know so we should be careful of our explanations in those cases.

 

[St.Blues]

Look at Bush's fingers and thumb.. Tell me that's not Illuminati! Hah... We know what you and you pals are up to George. Having said that George... **** You! You will lose!~
Hello Tea Party!

Blues