Breaking the Science Barrier

[Mitch Cronin]

I do believe I like this man. ...and he's right, it is somewhat frightening to see how many people believe the nonsense about evolution being a "controversial theory", when in actuality it is, of course, established fact.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...science+barrier

[Guest rattler]

I do believe I like this man. ...and he's right, it is somewhat frightening to see how many people believe the nonsense about evolution being a "controversial theory", when in actuality it is, of course, established fact.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77...science+barrier

Of course you realize that you have now probably p.i.s.s.e.d. Sarah right off. Guess no visit to Alaska in your future.

[Mitch Cronin]

...oh well ... then here's something to soothe me while I nurse those wounds:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=91...Bxrm7Bg&q=blues

(it'll surprise ya'all! )

[handyman]

What a load of crap. Hillbilly music when referring to the Religious. It looked more like a Michael Moore film then anything fact based.

So, scientists accept the fact that it all started from one cell? Show any scientific proof that it's even possible? To believe this film as presented shows how gullible people are.

There is a lot which is unknown and Dawkins is not an authority on anything but the ridiculous!

You probably believe that the lunar landing was a hoax too. Have you seen Elvis lately?

[Mitch Cronin]

....sigh....

[Southshore]

Amen to that, Mitch. Oo wait,that didin't come out right. Um, the devil made me do it. Eee, that's not right either, dammit. Augghh.

Well, you get my drift.

[Seeker]

What a load of crap.  Hillbilly music when referring to the Religious.  It looked more like a Michael Moore film then anything fact based.

So, scientists accept the fact that it all started from one cell?  Show any scientific proof that it's even possible?  To believe this film as presented shows how gullible people are.

There is a lot which is unknown and Dawkins is not an authority on anything but the ridiculous!

You probably believe that the lunar landing was a hoax too.  Have you seen Elvis lately?

What??

You've got it backwards - I think the religious south is a more likely place to find "Lunar Landing Hoax" believers and Elvis spotters than any scientific community.

In my opinion Dawkins has more credibility than you or any bible-thumping halfwit from Alabama (or bible-thumping halfwit from anywhere).

You're right; there is much that is unknown. Science says, when something is unknown - keep searching and soon the area that is unknown will become smaller, religion says, when something is unknown - god did it, you can stop looking now.

[handyman]

What??

You've got it backwards - I think the religious south is a more likely place to find "Lunar Landing Hoax" believers and Elvis spotters than any scientific community.

In my opinion Dawkins has more credibility than you or any bible-thumping halfwit from Alabama (or bible-thumping halfwit from anywhere).

You're right; there is much that is unknown. Science says, when something is unknown - keep searching and soon the area that is unknown will become smaller, religion says, when something is unknown - god did it, you can stop looking now.

More likely...say's who?

You really think your related to a tree? All came from a single cel?

Maybe some are related to a tree...

[Seeker]

More likely...say's who?

You really think your related to a tree?  All came from a single cel?

Maybe some are related to a tree...

Of course I am related to a tree. I'm also related to every other bit of life on the planet - as hard as it it to believe I'm even related to you. Why do you find this to be such a strange concept when you can easily accept that god could snap his fingers and create everything? Would this not also mean that you are related to trees?

[handyman]

That's fine...you be a tree while I know my creation was more special.

[Moon The Loon]

Geez Louise, you guys. It's only Stephen Hawking! No God Factor. HONEST!

He has a mind as intricate as Einstein's: theories as profound - and Black Holes now in denial!

If there is ANYONE who believes that ALS is an affliction of the mind, this man is a testament to the quality of Life in the fast lane and not a mental deficiency. He's coming to Canada. I want his autograph.

Maybe he'll even weigh into the global warming debate...

[Seeker]

Geez Louise, you guys. It's only Stephen Hawking! No God Factor. HONEST!

He has a mind as intricate as Einstein's: theories as profound - and Black Holes now in denial!

If there is ANYONE who believes that ALS is an affliction of the mind, this man is a testament to the quality of Life in the fast lane and not a mental deficiency. He's coming to Canada. I want his autograph.

Maybe he'll even weigh into the global warming debate...

MTL; We're talking about Richard Dawkins not Stephen Hawking.

[Seeker]

That's fine...you be a tree while I know my creation was more special.

You know Handyman, every time I get into this with you I you I tell myself "never again" and then a few months go by and I forget how irrational and childish you are. Yup, you're special alright.

BTW, here's a link you would greatly benefit from reading;

ESL - Common Mistakes in English: your/you're

[Mitch Cronin]

But Handyman, as others have pointed out, a belief in "creation" doesn't have to deny the truth science has discovered about evolution... Maybe the "creation" was in creating the ability for that single cell to divide and replicate itself?...

Do you think it's just fine for people to thumb their noses at science? Do you think it's harmless?

Does God hold up that big aeroplane you fly?... or do you think maybe we ought to understand the real forces involved a little better?

How can you accept science on one hand, yet deny it on the other? There's no debate among scientists about evolution. It's a widely accepted truth, so to do as Alabama has done -- for those who didn't view the film, The governor of Alabama has had an insert added to every biology text book in the state that calls evolution "a controversial theory that some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things" -- is, as Dawkins said, "sneaky and dishonest". It is not, among qualified scientists, "controversial" at all! And if you ever find a "scientist" who does not accept evolution, he's a quack that is not worth listening to for any other reason than entertainment!

What are those who are so dead stuck on creationism going to do when we discover life on other worlds? How will the tale of "Adam and Eve" fit in then?

[Guest rattler]

You know Handyman, every time I get into this with you I you I tell myself "never again" and then a few months go by and I forget how irrational and childish you are. Yup, you're special alright.

BTW, here's a link you would greatly benefit from reading;

ESL - Common Mistakes in English: your/you're

Seeker, you are beginning to sound like Dagger

[Guest rattler]

Mitch, seems that a lot of scientists are happy to question evolution and yet still believe in science. I don't think they are all quacks. I am not a scientist and I do believe in evolution, but that is coupled with a belief in that there must be something / someone out there who is superior to us, at least I hope so. However one question that remains a puzzle when one considers a "god" who created all is where did the "god" come from? In other words who / what created the "god"?

http://www.livescience.com/culture/081118-god-evolution.html

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

[handyman]

But Handyman, as others have pointed out, a belief in "creation" doesn't have to deny the truth science has discovered about evolution... Maybe the "creation" was in creating the ability for that single cell to divide and replicate itself?...

Do you think it's just fine for people to thumb their noses at science? Do you think it's harmless?

Does God hold up that big aeroplane you fly?... or do you think maybe we ought to understand the real forces involved a little better?

How can you accept science on one hand, yet deny it on the other? There's no debate among scientists about evolution. It's a widely accepted truth, so to do as Alabama has done -- for those who didn't view the film, The governor of Alabama has had an insert added to every biology text book in the state that calls evolution "a controversial theory that some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things" -- is, as Dawkins said, "sneaky and dishonest". It is not, among qualified scientists, "controversial" at all! And if you ever find a "scientist" who does not accept evolution, he's a quack that is not worth listening to for any other reason than entertainment!

What are those who are so dead stuck on creationism going to do when we discover life on other worlds? How will the tale of "Adam and Eve" fit in then?

Fortunately Mitch, It's not "let's make a deal" and I don't have to accept everything that is behind door number 1. Scientists are often right but not always!

There are many areas of evolution which are scientifically proven fact but also just as many which require a huge leap of faith to accept as well. For instance;

In the beginning, we had the "Early Atmosphere" which needed a favorable environment for life to evolve. How did this begin?

We then had "Simple Organic Molecules" the building blocks of life.

Then "Large Macro-Molecules" which are proteins, DNA etc.

We then need "Biological Systems" where energy conversion is constructed.

Then the "Living Cell" where all these molecules and systems come together to form a highly complex living cell.

When these steps are examined SCIENTIFICALLY, it's obvious that there are problems which require huge leaps of faith for them to be just a natural form of evolution. Some have explained the origin of life as simple as a lightning strike in a sea of organic soup. Sounds like a cheap Sci-Fi movie to me.

In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature often considers the possibility of life as dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" but even this only moves to problem one step outward.

For me...call me illogical or childish but I would rather have faith in God then some whacky scientific theory which in itself is illogical.

Always a pleasure having a chat with my fav GM.

[Moon The Loon]

All came from a single cel?

Judging by some of the cartoon characters on this board, that's probably pretty accurate!

If you don't understand my comment, look up "cel" on Wiki

And yeah, Dawkins...Hawkings...I get too confused too easily lately

[handyman]

Judging by some of the cartoon characters on this board, that's probably pretty accurate!

If you don't understand my comment, look up "cel" on Wiki

And yeah, Dawkins...Hawkings...I get too confused too easily lately

What are you a school teacher? Did you honestly misunderstand the statement because I dropped an "l" on cell?

I'll promise to duoble check my speeling and gramor in the futur!

[Mitch Cronin]

Handyman, I think MTL was just playing the pun you didn't know you'd created... for fun.

and re:

In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists.

I don't think so. Biologists maybe, but why do evolutionists need to explain that at all? Their interest is in understanding everything that happened after that... very much of which can be, and has been, found in the fossil record.

Still, obviously all of us would like to know exactly how the very first life began on Earth.... maybe it came from elsewhere on a meteor?.. maybe it was God?

So I wanna know, how do you reconcile the age of Earth problem then? Or are you one of those who thinks it's only like a few thousand years old? (You know they've found fossil evidence of 3 and a half billion year old bacteria)... maybe you believe Elvis is still alive?

Rattler... the term Dawkins used was "Qualified scientists"...(did you watch the film?) sorry if I omitted that word.

[Don Hudson]

handyman;

In the beginning, we had the "Early Atmosphere" which needed a favorable environment for life to evolve. How did this begin?

We then had "Simple Organic Molecules" the building blocks of life.

Then "Large Macro-Molecules" which are proteins, DNA etc.

We then need "Biological Systems" where energy conversion is constructed.

Then the "Living Cell" where all these molecules and systems come together to form a highly complex living cell.

When these steps are examined SCIENTIFICALLY, it's obvious that there are problems which require huge leaps of faith for them to be just a natural form of evolution. Some have explained the origin of life as simple as a lightning strike in a sea of organic soup. Sounds like a cheap Sci-Fi movie to me.

In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature often considers the possibility of life as dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" but even this only moves to problem one step outward.

For me...call me illogical or childish but I would rather have faith in God then some whacky scientific theory which in itself is illogical.

Most of the argument you're making against evolutionary fact is a rehash of the argument from personal incredulity - that life itself, (cells, the atmosphere, DNA) is so complex that it couldn't have emerged on it's own and therefore needs a creator. The origin of life is NOT a big problem for evolutionists. We know how DNA began, just as we know how "the complicated organ of the eye" began. It's just not a scientific mystery - it's there for anyone with the desire to know and learn, and there is a very big downside to faith that I'll get to in a moment.

The complexity of the substances of life do not prove that there is a creator. They only prove that life, in all it's complexity, evolved.

In fact, given the existence of real monsters and not the imaginary kind of childhood dreams - Hitler, Amin, et al and the mess that is the human body and the fact that the human body is itself a veritable virus factory for life, and given the fact that it took over 3 billion years just to get to this messy stage of life of bad backs, uncontrolled cell reproduction, appendixes, blindness, disease, and a war-like nature, I don't think the term "intelligent" applies to the "design" at all !

In my view and the view of most, (except the majority of Americans who also believe in a literal devil and heaven as a physical place), the rest is done on blind and demonstrably ignorant faith. Ignorant, because all of what you claim to be "difficult to prove scientifically" has been dealt with decades ago and falls easily to hand for anyone with an open mind, some patience and some time to read.

Evolutionary facts do not deny a god. They just don't prove a god. Evolutionary facts relegate such statements as those you to which you refer, to the realm of faith - and as such are well outside the realm of knowledge about the universe. Many scientists, some famous, have a strong faith. Such faith means nothing, scientifically. It only means they have a strong faith. As such, we each may believe as we will, but don't try to make the magic leap from complexity to "god exists". We are well beyond that with present knowledge.

The notion of intelligent design, far from being a theory of how life began, is a quasi-religious political movement which has the intention of taking and retaining power for the religious right. That fact is as plain as both historical and present events demonstrate. The teaching of ID in U.S. schools, at least in enlightened regions, is correctly prohibited in science classes but that doesn't mean that the supporters of ID aren't lobbying school boards to teach ID as an "alternative scientific view" which it most certainly is not, despite what Sarah Palin says.

The Discovery Institute is the formal press agent in charge of marketing Intelligent Design, a variation intended to mask the notion's creationist sources and beginnings, mainly to the U.S., Australian and in some regions, the Canadian educational system. The site, very sophisticated in presentation, actually reads like a potpourri of political diatribes and squirrely logic similar to the stuff scientology, (which started out as a dare to Ron Hubbard that he couldn't create a new religion), dishes out and the crap handed out in "Awake" pamphlets - all this beside the point.

You deny you're related to trees?

It is scientific fact that we share over 98% of our genes with chimps, slightly less with pigs and horses, 50% with bananas and more than a few with pond scum.

Many ask the question, as if the question itself "proves" or at least hearkens to "god", "If god isn't in the genes, then what is the point of it all?" The question is a non-sequitur - the point of it all IS, what we make of it, and, at this present second in our very short history in the universe, we have the capacity to snuff it all out in an earth-heartbeat.

I said I'd discuss a serious, humanity-wide problem with faith in a benevolent creator. The notion of faith and the notion of "god" are, in fact, dangerous ones because it frees mankind to do as he will to the earth and god will fix it or at least save us, or at least save "special" people. What nonsense! We frighten ourselves silly into believing that "infidels" will be erradicated while "believers" will be saved. Religions of all kinds are full of this ignorant meme. This time, according to Sarah Palin's church anyway, believers will be save in Alaska. In a perverse way, we have "god" to thank for her failure to be elected.

Intelligent Design is as mendacious a theory as can be cooked up by a nefarious group who desire power, not believers. Scientific knowledge of how sex is determined (X,Y chromosomes, as we know...or do we all...?), indicates that the children of "virgin births" are, logically of course, female...ergo...

That doesn't mean Christ did not exist. It just means that scientific knowledge of today - what is real and predictable - clashes with and loses to ancient mythologies which still control much of what 47% of Americans think, if statistics are to be believed...

If we wish to remain within "received mythologies", that faith is a personal choice and I would never deny that there are many good, personal, human reasons for deciding thus.

But in terms of a species, and we are all members with the power to change things, (despite the fact that neoliberal thought is stealing our democracies from us), the sooner we ditch the notion that we are special and that by following religious leaders and their snakeoil we will somehow continue to flourish safely behind mythological skirts when all else is in ashes and ruins on our tiny home in the universe, the sooner we may begin to increase our chances of that very survival.

[Guest rattler]

Handyman, I think MTL was just playing the pun you didn't know you'd created... for fun.

and re:I don't think so. Biologists maybe, but why do evolutionists need to explain that at all? Their interest is in understanding everything that happened after that... very much of which can be, and has been, found in the fossil record.

Still, obviously all of us would like to know exactly how the very first life began on Earth.... maybe it came from elsewhere on a meteor?.. maybe it was God?

So I wanna know, how do you reconcile the age of Earth problem then? Or are you one of those who thinks it's only like a few thousand years old? (You know they've found fossil evidence of 3 and a half billion year old bacteria)... maybe you believe Elvis is still alive?

Rattler... the term Dawkins used was "Qualified scientists"...(did you watch the film?) sorry if I omitted that word.

Qualified as in what field? Biology I guess?

Anyway, the following is a good read for those interested in the subject:

Science and Theology

Kenneth Cauthen

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/science.htm

[Timothy]

Science has nothing to say about the existence of God. That is a subject for theology and philosophy, not biology. Those of us who believe in God do so on the basis of faith, not science. Many of us have this faith, others do not. The arguments of Dawkins and his supporters are irrelevant. The Richard Dawkins website has his books and dvd's prominently displayed for sale. Evidently he makes money by peddling his ideas. This is not science. Scientists do their research then try to get the results published in peer-reviewed journals. (Been there, done that.)

Darwin established the fact that evolution does exist, but he based his findings on his own observations which could be repeated by others. There is no conflict between religion and science in this matter although some seem to think so. Did man evolve from lower forms of primates such as chimps? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I don't waste my time thinking about it.

There had to be a first cause for the matter in the universe. It had to come from somewhere and it's illogical to think that it just always existed. We call this prime cause God. Where did God come from? I don't know. Science won't tell me either.

Just my 2 cents. Handyman, you're not alone.

[J.O.]

The Richard Dawkins website has his books and dvd's prominently displayed for sale.  Evidently he makes money by peddling his ideas.

Take a tour of the Vatican or the Crystal Cathedral and then tell me who makes money by peddling their ideas.

[Guest rattler]

Re making money by peddling ideas. My devil advocates role can not stop from pointing out the role of money raising in the name of religion. Everything from bingo, to tithes, to collection baskets at every service etc etc etc. Money does make the world go round.

Big religion is all about big money so to call down the other side because of fund raising, seems to be a bit one sided.