Osama Flops in USA

[sharkman]

Gost, religion may presume that God did it, but they want to know HOW God did it. I won't bother showing you how some of the most famous scientists of the last 500 years were religious, no doubt it's a miracle on par with evolution that we managed to escape the 'witchcraft' of their influence.

Anyway, I take it no one has yet has yet found the evidence to disprove my challenge that evolution from one celled creatures to present day creatures does not exist. You've chosen your religion as I mine.

[AngusThermopyle]

Anyway, I take it no one has yet has yet found the evidence to disprove my challenge that evolution from one celled creatures to present day creatures does not exist. You've chosen your religion as I mine.

Actually there is a huge amount of evidence that indicates precisely that. All you have to do is type 'examples of speciation" into Google and let the information avalanche begin. What I find hard to understand is the reluctance of people to accept a naturistic explanation for complex systems. I dont understand why people insist that magic was the mechanism behind existance. For instance, the common automobile. If you had never seen a car before and asked how it moves would you accept magic as the explanation?

Scientists have already shown evolutionary traits in single celled creatures when subjected to environmental variables in laboratory settings. Obviously they have not grown any complex multi cellular life forms from single primitive cells as this process would require a huge amount of time even under accelerated growth rates, but they have shown that evolutionary theory holds true on a cellular level within the time frame referenced for the experiments. When discussing this topic I frequently hear the question "how could such complex creatures as humans have developed from a single cell by chance?" Well we didn't evolve entirely by chance, as stated evolutionary theory postulates adaptive change according to environmental factors, as such it is not pure chance, it is in large part an influenced change.

As for the complexity of the human form, well it's not really that complex . Did you know that the genome of a single celled Aimeoba contains about three times more genetic material than the human Genome? Or that we share a huge amount of our genetic material with Apes, I believe it's about 98% or some such thing, I cant remember the exact figure right now but if you want the exact amount I will post it with a link.

Another comment I hear frequently is "there are lots of Scientists who dont believe evolutionary theory". Well if you consider people without accreditation and a knowledge of the subject to be lots of Scientists you would be right. However, any real Scientist simply can not disbelieve evolutionary theory. The evidence is too pervasive and plentifull to disregard. for instance, evolutionary theory is used to design and "evolve" complex shapes and designs, things like Aircraft and Ship hulls amongst many others. Computer simulations have been written (they're actually not that complex) that illustrate the effects of evolutionary theory in a dramatically fast time frame. All these things are either based on or the result of Evolutionary theory, they all behave in the manner that the theory suggests they should, and they do this time after time with results conforming to the theory.

When you start to really learn about it, not just posess some vague general information, you find that it is a truly fascinating subject. I like to read about it sometimes when I just want to relax.

[sharkman]

Obviously they have not grown any complex multi cellular life forms from single primitive cells...

Just because they can do tricks with single cell organisms in a lab, they therefore extrapolate that into proof, eh? Look, I understand what you are saying, I really do. And I am not going to get into yet another boring evolution/creation debate, it will be a waste of your time and my time. That is why I asked for proof the way I did. You can not provide such proof, because it does not exist. I can not provide such proof for creation. I am not going to cram creation down your throat. Please do not cram evolution down my throat. When such proof of evolution exists, please let me know.

[AngusThermopyle]

Just because they can do tricks with single cell organisms in a lab, they therefore extrapolate that into proof, eh? Look, I understand what you are saying, I really do. And I am not going to get into yet another boring evolution/creation debate, it will be a waste of your time and my time. That is why I asked for proof the way I did. You can not provide such proof, because it does not exist. I can not provide such proof for creation. I am not going to cram creation down your throat. Please do not cram evolution down my throat. When such proof of evolution exists, please let me know.

Actually you asked a question and I answered it, how does that constitute cramming down your throat?

What you casually dismiss as "tricks" is actually the culmination of years of work by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. This work and research has brought us to a point where we have a pretty darn good understanding of the mechanics of Evolution, as I pointed out before the theory of evolution has been put to the test many times over in many disciplines and has yet to fail that test. It is interesting to note that you appear to regard all practical proof of Evolution in such a cavalier fashion. Wanting proof in the form of a human grown from a single cell displays either a total lack of knowledge of the subject or a rather juvenile inability to accept what has been demonstrated many times over.

Just to clarify, every single human and animal on this planet was grown from a single cell

It really is of no concern to me if you wish to hide from established research and knowledge, all that concerns me is the fact that I can recognize work of value when I see it.

[sharkman]

You didn't present proof that humans evolved from single cell creatures. I didn't want a human grown from such a cell, and your characterization of my comment shows your inability to objectively discuss creationism. condescending attitudes like yours don't prove anything about evolution either. Do you have anything else?

[AngusThermopyle]

condescending attitudes like yours don't prove anything about evolution either. Do you have anything else?

Well I apologize for appearing condescending, that was not my intention.

However do you not see any condescention in your casual dismissal of all the hard honest work some of the smartest people on the planet have done? When you dismiss it out of hand as mere "tricks"? That is a terrible thing to do, to casually dismiss one of the end results of countless ages of human discovery and effort as mere tricks is to cheapen all academic effort and discovery. Simply put, I do not understand why so many people want to supress and dismiss the growth of human knowledge.

Do you understand the theory of evolution? It does not state that we evolved to our present form from single celled creatures, no where does it state this. It states that living organism will evolve and adapt subject to environmental influences. This has been shown time and time again, not just within the laboratory but within computer simulations and also in the real world. How much more proof or evidence is required? Especially when you consider the fact that those who dispute evolution offer not one shred of proof or evidence to refute it.

The theory of evolution is clear on one thing though (and this has been shown many times in controlled experiments), evolution takes a long time, a long long time. So to demand an instant example of an evolving theory is simply not reasonable.

[Oleg Bach]

Well I apologize for appearing condescending, that was not my intention.

However do you not see any condescention in your casual dismissal of all the hard honest work some of the smartest people on the planet have done? When you dismiss it out of hand as mere "tricks"? That is a terrible thing to do, to casually dismiss one of the end results of countless ages of human discovery and effort as mere tricks is to cheapen all academic effort and discovery. Simply put, I do not understand why so many people want to supress and dismiss the growth of human knowledge.

Do you understand the theory of evolution? It does not state that we evolved to our present form from single celled creatures, no where does it state this. It states that living organism will evolve and adapt subject to environmental influences. This has been shown time and time again, not just within the laboratory but within computer simulations and also in the real world. How much more proof or evidence is required? Especially when you consider the fact that those who dispute evolution offer not one shred of proof or evidence to refute it.

The theory of evolution is clear on one thing though (and this has been shown many times in controlled experiments), evolution takes a long time, a long long time. So to demand an instant example of an evolving theory is simply not reasonable.

Evolution is creation..quote.." A second is a thousand years and a thousand years but a second" This touching on quantum mechanics came from the mouth of Christ. I was never a monkey and a monkey will never be me..we are related as life forms that's it. Man was generated in his present for a million years ago..if not a kazillion..We as humans use the human construct of time to justify that we are gods and created our selves....Darwin never stated once that there is no God...find a Darwinian quote to the such and show it to me...I am not an animal..I am a man..evolution justifies parasitic and preditorial behaviour...only bad people up to know good embrace evloution as the end all of theory..and creationist are retarded...6 days is a billion years...over and out God! Just kidding I am not God..just an observer of the miracle.

[AngusThermopyle]

only bad people up to know good embrace evloution as the end all of theory..

this is a non statement, an oxymoron. By definition evolution does not claim to be or imply that it is the final answer. In fact if one looks at the definition and principle of evolution it becomes apparent that it is a label applied to a process that never ends in order to structure the idea in a form we can understand and work with. By definition the word evolution can never mean the end of all theory.

[Oleg Bach]

this is a non statement, an oxymoron. By definition evolution does not claim to be or imply that it is the final answer. In fact if one looks at the definition and principle of evolution it becomes apparent that it is a label applied to a process that never ends in order to structure the idea in a form we can understand and work with. By definition the word evolution can never mean the end of all theory.

The average Joe regards the word theory as fact..where as we know it is speculative. If you believe in goodness and the concept that is God..and evloution - then you are balanced. If you embrace evolution and wipe out the angelic qualities that are inheriant in the human being ...and justify abusing people by saying that "it's human nature" and people can be harrassed by opportunists and those opportunist justfy their bad behaviour in the theory that we are wild evolving animals..well I would say those evolutionist are bad news.

[AngusThermopyle]

well I would say those evolutionist are bad news

And I would agree with you 100%, they are bad news, just as Fundamentalists are. The label that one dons in order to supress knowledge is of little importance, what is of importance is the actual actions that lead to the supression of knowledge.

That is something that hurts everyone.

[Oleg Bach]

And I would agree with you 100%, they are bad news, just as Fundamentalists are. The label that one dons in order to supress knowledge is of little importance, what is of importance is the actual actions that lead to the supression of knowledge.

That is something that hurts everyone.

Those are sweet words. Knowledge is the facing of fact..and the embracing of reality forfeiting comfortable illusionism..how many people are have the courage to be wise and face the truth head on? It was scarey for me but at least I gave it a try..I became alienated from most and am just learning to adjust and be more tolerant of people governed by fear of knowledge..If you are going to deal with a problem you must KNOW all aspects of that broken bit of reality in order to glue the thing back together..all I can tell you my friend is once you go into the light of knowledge you can not go back..it's a lonely road.

[sharkman]

Well I apologize for appearing condescending, that was not my intention.

However do you not see any condescention in your casual dismissal of all the hard honest work some of the smartest people on the planet have done? When you dismiss it out of hand as mere "tricks"? That is a terrible thing to do, to casually dismiss one of the end results of countless ages of human discovery and effort as mere tricks is to cheapen all academic effort and discovery. Simply put, I do not understand why so many people want to supress and dismiss the growth of human knowledge.

Do you understand the theory of evolution? It does not state that we evolved to our present form from single celled creatures, no where does it state this. It states that living organism will evolve and adapt subject to environmental influences. This has been shown time and time again, not just within the laboratory but within computer simulations and also in the real world. How much more proof or evidence is required? Especially when you consider the fact that those who dispute evolution offer not one shred of proof or evidence to refute it.

The theory of evolution is clear on one thing though (and this has been shown many times in controlled experiments), evolution takes a long time, a long long time. So to demand an instant example of an evolving theory is simply not reasonable.

In the great scheme of things, I termed such experiments tricks in the context of the miracle of life. I suppose I was belittling the efforts of some and that was poorly worded of me.

At any rate, you sound really confident of some of the findings in the evolution camp. But I can't help thinking that the best minds in the world once thought that the earth was flat. Or that Eugenics was the answer. Or that plastic shopping bags were far superior than paper bags. Now they are banning plastic, I'm not sure they have the humility to go back to paper.

Or that compact floursecent(sp?) bulbs are now the greatest thing since sliced bread. They contain mercury, and with in a few years will suffer a level of persecution on par with cigarette smokers. Yet man figures he can figure out the origins of the universe. Sorry if I'm pessimistic, but at least let me reserve the right to smile up my sleeve once in a while.

Edited May 18, 2008 by sharkman

[GostHacked]

You didn't present proof that humans evolved from single cell creatures. I didn't want a human grown from such a cell, and your characterization of my comment shows your inability to objectively discuss creationism. condescending attitudes like yours don't prove anything about evolution either. Do you have anything else?

Well it may not be a matter of what you 'want', it is more of a matter of what 'is'. I cannot see how creationism can be discussed objectively.

Gost, religion may presume that God did it, but they want to know HOW God did it. I won't bother showing you how some of the most famous scientists of the last 500 years were religious, no doubt it's a miracle on par with evolution that we managed to escape the 'witchcraft' of their influence.

They might even discover that God had nothing to do with any of it. God did it, and now you try to find out how god did it? Should we not find out what God is before we find out how he has done things? Everytime I get to this, it is a philosophical debate about god and creationism, for there is no science to back it up. Don't need to show me that most scientists are religious. Since there is a majority of religious people as opposed to agnostic/athiests. So just by the numbers, you will have more scientists believing in a God than not. I also think it is a noble cause, finding out how it was done. Was it majic? Or was it something else?

Anyway, I take it no one has yet has yet found the evidence to disprove my challenge that evolution from one celled creatures to present day creatures does not exist. You've chosen your religion as I mine.

And I take it you have no real evidence to prove otherwise? If you do have some evidence and proof, like real proof, not just pure uneducated speculation, I'd like to see it.

Angus, your statement about a human being a single cell during conception, could be the strongest evidence about evolving from a single cell. If a human can develope out of a single cell, and all other animals on this planet use the same process of egg/sperm, creating one cell that divides itself many times to become something more than it was.

back off topic again, but who cares right???

But I can't help thinking that the best minds in the world once thought that the earth was flat.

The best minds are about making those new discoveries. The best minds will change their answer when they are confronted with irrefulatble proof. They thought it was flat, they have solid evidence that proved the world was round. They took the boat and sailed, and sailed, and they did not fall of the earth. They also discovered that the world was round by noticing the ships were disapearing over the horizon. If the world was flat, they should be able to see the ships from anywhere in the ocean. What if that mentality was still around today, that the world was flat? What if we just now discovered that the world was round. It would challenge your belief system to the core.

Through observation, calculations, experiments, they have discovered that the world is actually round. Religion may have been a catalyst for the discovery, but it was science and experiments that showed us that the discovery is 100% fact or fiction. Religion and creationism has not done this at all, nothing can be scientifcaly proven 100% by using religion. Eventhough science is not 100% much of the time, we are slowly getting to that 100%. Religion and creationism are still at the starting line.

[Kitchener]

At no time did "the best minds" agree that the Earth was flat. Shoring up one's ignorance about evolution by means of one's ignorance about the history of science is a dead end.

As for the era during which the best minds of science formed a consensus on shopping bag materials... well, there's a rich vein of sharkmanian insight for you. I've always been a big fan of Einstein's famous posthumous letters on paper v. plastic, and am delighted to see that the overlooked work of Bohr, Hilbert, Fisher, Crick and Watson on proper shopping bag construction is finally getting the attention it deserves.

I find these sorts of thoughtful, informed discussions in which everyone's views are called religions are much better than the ones where people just make up some shit about history, science, and scientists, and pretend they have a clue.

[sharkman]

At no time did "the best minds" agree that the Earth was flat. Shoring up one's ignorance about evolution by means of one's ignorance about the history of science is a dead end.

As for the era during which the best minds of science formed a consensus on shopping bag materials... well, there's a rich vein of sharkmanian insight for you. I've always been a big fan of Einstein's famous posthumous letters on paper v. plastic, and am delighted to see that the overlooked work of Bohr, Hilbert, Fisher, Crick and Watson on proper shopping bag construction is finally getting the attention it deserves.

I find these sorts of thoughtful, informed discussions in which everyone's views are called religions are much better than the ones where people just make up some shit about history, science, and scientists, and pretend they have a clue.

You missed the point as you often do, but you sound so satisfied with your response, I'll leave you to your emotions.

[sharkman]

The best minds are about making those new discoveries. The best minds will change their answer when they are confronted with irrefulatble proof. They thought it was flat, they have solid evidence that proved the world was round. They took the boat and sailed, and sailed, and they did not fall of the earth. They also discovered that the world was round by noticing the ships were disapearing over the horizon. If the world was flat, they should be able to see the ships from anywhere in the ocean. What if that mentality was still around today, that the world was flat? What if we just now discovered that the world was round. It would challenge your belief system to the core.

Through observation, calculations, experiments, they have discovered that the world is actually round. Religion may have been a catalyst for the discovery, but it was science and experiments that showed us that the discovery is 100% fact or fiction. Religion and creationism has not done this at all, nothing can be scientifcaly proven 100% by using religion. Eventhough science is not 100% much of the time, we are slowly getting to that 100%. Religion and creationism are still at the starting line.

Weren't round earthers persecuted?

The problem comes in where there is no irrefutable proof, Gost. Then whoever has the best sounding theory carries the day. But that is not my point. The point is with all of the error that goes on in the name of science (They can't even make up their minds as to whether coffee is good or bad for us and I could name hundreds of examples of a more serious nature), being certain about the origins of the universe is like believing the earth is flat...er round I mean.

Science is only a tool, but when so many make it their relgion(I am not inferring you) it takes on the flaws of its practitioners.

[Kitchener]

Weren't round earthers persecuted?

The point was the combination of ignorance and confidence in your posts. The fact that you can't even bother to Google an easily accessible bit of data after your error has been pointed out says it all. Since approximately Plato's day there has been no intellectual consensus in a flat earth; and indeed has been a consistent consensus for a spherical earth.

Many ancients employed metrically approximate but geometrically correct methods of measuring the Earth's circumference.

But do continue with your words of wisdom.

[sharkman]

Through observation, calculations, experiments, they have discovered that the world is actually round. Religion may have been a catalyst for the discovery, but it was science and experiments that showed us that the discovery is 100% fact or fiction. Religion and creationism has not done this at all, nothing can be scientifcaly proven 100% by using religion. Eventhough science is not 100% much of the time, we are slowly getting to that 100%. Religion and creationism are still at the starting line.

And let me be clear, I am not saying that Religion is perfect or has the right theory here. I am just saying that since science has been so embarrassingly wrong in the past, there is no doubt they will continue to be wrong many times before they get it right on an issue. On something as complex as the origin of the universe, IMO this complexity has the effect of moving the goal posts whenever science makes a new discovery. New discoveries bring new complexity. I don't lose sleep over this or anything, but I think I have less confidence in science than you.

[BubberMiley]

I don't lose sleep over this or anything, but I think I have less confidence in science than you.

One would require a certain amount of faith in order to have confidence in something they know little about.

[Oleg Bach]

One would require a certain amount of faith in order to have confidence in something they know little about.

Faith in infinite consciousness is the highest form of science. Positive belief is powerful..where as what is todays science is tomorrows bunk...it's an on going thing and science and tech will not save the world in the long run..Faith and positive brave action and truth are the real medicine.

[GostHacked]

And let me be clear, I am not saying that Religion is perfect or has the right theory here. I am just saying that since science has been so embarrassingly wrong in the past, there is no doubt they will continue to be wrong many times before they get it right on an issue. On something as complex as the origin of the universe, IMO this complexity has the effect of moving the goal posts whenever science makes a new discovery. New discoveries bring new complexity. I don't lose sleep over this or anything, but I think I have less confidence in science than you.

Science is not above changing it's answer when more evidence is presented to change that answer. That is exactly what science is. Religion and creationism have only one answer. God did it. No room for growth. No room for an alternative. And besides, if we don't get it wrong now and then, we learn nothing. Science will continue to bring me all these wonderful products I can use to make my life more comfortable. If you do not have confidence in science, then you have no confidence in technology. That is the way I see it.

Look around you as to what science has brought you. If you do not have confidence in it, throw it all away. Get rid of it. If you don't, then you have more faith and confidence in science than you thought. One would think religion has been embarasingly wrong in the past as well. but I cannot really anymore than that, for I am not a religious person.

[Oleg Bach]

Science is not above changing it's answer when more evidence is presented to change that answer. That is exactly what science is. Religion and creationism have only one answer. God did it. No room for growth. No room for an alternative. And besides, if we don't get it wrong now and then, we learn nothing. Science will continue to bring me all these wonderful products I can use to make my life more comfortable. If you do not have confidence in science, then you have no confidence in technology. That is the way I see it.

Look around you as to what science has brought you. If you do not have confidence in it, throw it all away. Get rid of it. If you don't, then you have more faith and confidence in science than you thought. One would think religion has been embarasingly wrong in the past as well. but I cannot really anymore than that, for I am not a religious person.

Look around and see what science has brought...nice...yep - but not as nice as the nesting robin in the blossoms I saw yesterday..now that was impressionable and highly evloved and surpassed every last scientific marvel by light years.. Technology is but a shovel...it depends on how well it is made and if it is truely a tool..technology that allows me to talk to a faceless person on my cell phone as compared to haveing a chat with a neighbour over the fence...is of no comparisson...HI DEF television or the beautiful glowing smile of an infant...you tell me what is real and what is superiour..and who created what and who is the higher God...you or the universe?

[GostHacked]

Look around and see what science has brought...nice...yep - but not as nice as the nesting robin in the blossoms I saw yesterday..now that was impressionable and highly evloved and surpassed every last scientific marvel by light years.. Technology is but a shovel...it depends on how well it is made and if it is truely a tool..technology that allows me to talk to a faceless person on my cell phone as compared to haveing a chat with a neighbour over the fence...is of no comparisson...HI DEF television or the beautiful glowing smile of an infant...you tell me what is real and what is superiour..and who created what and who is the higher God...you or the universe?

Ahh, but you admit that the nesting robin is highly evolved. Science can explain that. Religion cannot. The universe is not a god, and it is not god. I don't know if the world was created by some magical being, or it simply evolved that way. Science can at least explain and attempt to explain most things so we can understand. Saying God did it, really leaves no room for debate, no room for growth and understanding. I have noticed that most of you won't budge on this at all.

I can admit that there MIGHT be a god. Who knows, I really do not have any solid prood of that god ever existing. And at the same time I have no evidence that says he does not exist. But since I do have a lack of scientific analytical data on god, I can no more make a conclusion as to his existence than scientists or creationists can. You cannot show me anything that says he is for real. At least I am enlightened enough to say that I do not know everything and my question of the existence of god, I doubt it will get answered in my lifetime.

Here is the problem with creationists and religion. It is this way, or no way. Science says, well it is this way for now, because the evidence we have discovered so far adequetly defines that it is this way. But science also reserves the right to change the answer when the evidence now proves otherwise. Science has not been exact in the past, and that is due to what we understand about our world around us. The more we discover the more we understand. Religion and creationism is this nice little box you can stuff it all into and present it as fact and everything that ever was. I think the answer is more complex than a so called god doing everything.

[GostHacked]

Just wanting to say that this is turning into a philisophical debate now. As I kind if thought it would.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Religion and creationism is this nice little box you can stuff it all into and present it as fact and everything that ever was. I think the answer is more complex than a so called god doing everything.

The only problem with this conclusion is that in the end, science is always lacking the final answer (and spirituality) that many people desire. The very origin of the universe cannot be answered by science, because its methods only serve to parse answers into more questions. Those seeking a more immediate and less fussy answer can file it under "God".