Religion, or lack of, open discussion/FRIENDLY debate.

[MediMary]

well I didnt know of ANY science that has PROVED or DISPROVED GOD. Maybe they teach more up to date stuff at the college you graduated from, than the one I did.??


I was just asking if the science ur talking about is creationism..? chill man

"I don't, since only one side stands up to real scrutiny......for over 150 years no less"
I mean didnt you want a debate.. LMAO
thats some 6th grade debate status shit right there man...

You should write a book.. "every scientist that doesnt believe what I beleive is dumb"

Ill buy it

I love you

peace in

 

[CrackerJax]

Science isn't trying to disprove G*D. There is no evidence to disprove.....

 

[MediMary]

Im sorry buddy.. its hard to disern tounge and cheek over the net..
Ill wish you the best.. just comments like
" under any real examination, only one side could be correct"
equals WHY do you want to have a debate. anyways.. im going to stick to the growing forums where nobody has conflicting views on growing.. and everyone can agree their is Only one correct way to grow cannabis..

lov ya

 

[CrackerJax]

That might be best....

 

[shroomer33]

Gosh, and yet all the reputable science in the world disagrees with you. They must all be wrong....

It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.

What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review?

Ever really question the structures of power at work in this world? Including scientific structures of power? If you haven't, I doubt you'd be on this site. But I mean really really question the structures of power. I am sure you have questioned the structures of power with respect to the media and religion, but I am now talking about questioning the scientific citadel of inquisition. Ever do that, or do you believe everything the 'scientific' world spoonfeeds you?

I don't mean to be too offensive, but I used to believe everything I was taught by 'science.' My friends used to too.

Everything needs to be questioned. IMHO

 

[shroomer33]

Im sorry buddy.. its hard to disern tounge and cheek over the net..
Ill wish you the best.. just comments like
" under any real examination, only one side could be correct"
equals WHY do you want to have a debate. anyways.. im going to stick to the growing forums where nobody has conflicting views on growing.. and everyone can agree their is Only one correct way to grow cannabis..

lov ya

The way CrackerJax grows (if he does) is completely wrong, by the way. My way is better (not that I grow either).

 

[CrackerJax]

The way CrackerJax grows (if he does) is completely wrong, by the way. My way is better (not that I grow either).

And he bases that on .....completely nothing. Again.

It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.

What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review?

Ever really question the structures of power at work in this world? Including scientific structures of power? If you haven't, I doubt you'd be on this site. But I mean really really question the structures of power. I am sure you have questioned the structures of power with respect to the media and religion, but I am now talking about questioning the scientific citadel of inquisition. Ever do that, or do you believe everything the 'scientific' world spoonfeeds you?

What makes science reputable? That question right there disqualifies you from the discussion (intelligent discussion that is).

 

[PadawanBater]

It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.

What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review?

Ever really question the structures of power at work in this world? Including scientific structures of power? If you haven't, I doubt you'd be on this site. But I mean really really question the structures of power. I am sure you have questioned the structures of power with respect to the media and religion, but I am now talking about questioning the scientific citadel of inquisition. Ever do that, or do you believe everything the 'scientific' world spoonfeeds you?

I don't mean to be too offensive, but I used to believe everything I was taught by 'science.' My friends used to too.

Everything needs to be questioned. IMHO

Name one biologist who doesn't agree with the theory of evolution... one.

99.9% of people actively working in the field of biology accept the theory of evolution as fact. That is not up for debate, the scientific community isn't trying to pass this off as some false theory. It's real, it happened, it still happens, it explains our origins, it explains the complexity of life on this planet and it's considered the backbone OF biology.

What would be the motivation shroomer? Why would scientists try to trick everyone into believing this if it was completely false?

 

[bicycle racer]

it amuses me that bible thumpers denounce science but dont mind using there microwave or going to the doctor or using pretty much anything involving technology. which was developed by the people that they think are wrong thats quite a contradiction. to allow yourself to have a better quality of life because of science but then denounce it is funny to me and only makes religious types look more confused.

 

[CrackerJax]

it amuses me that bible thumpers denounce science but dont mind using there microwave or going to the doctor or using pretty much anything involving technology. which was developed by the people that they think are wrong thats quite a contradiction. to allow yourself to have a better quality of life because of science but then denounce it is funny to me and only makes religious types look more confused.

One of the reasons why you cannot fault the Amish.....at least they have kept their principles. I have to respect that.

 

[PadawanBater]

One of the reasons why you cannot fault the Amish.....at least they have kept their principles. I have to respect that.

Come to think of it... Amish people are one of the only religious groups I don't have a problem with, and I can't think of any more off the top of my head right now, maybe a couple of the east asian religions...

Maybe the other fundies should take a page from the Amish about how to preach their message...

 

[shroomer33]

Name one biologist who doesn't agree with the theory of evolution... one.

99.9% of people actively working in the field of biology accept the theory of evolution as fact. That is not up for debate, the scientific community isn't trying to pass this off as some false theory. It's real, it happened, it still happens, it explains our origins, it explains the complexity of life on this planet and it's considered the backbone OF biology.

What would be the motivation shroomer? Why would scientists try to trick everyone into believing this if it was completely false?

This really illustrates one of the biggest problems with the whole 'evolution' debate. The very term 'evolution' is a loaded term. What is meant by 'evolution'? Change? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. Adaptation to environments? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. When you start defining 'evolution' as the mechanism by which, through natural selection, new forms of life arise, the disagreements start.
Ok. You want a biologist who doesn't buy mainstream Darwinism?
Dean Kenyon
There. You want more? Dr. Kenyon wrote the book on evolutionary theory (literally. The textbook he wrote (Biochemical Predestination)is a classic in evolutionary theory.) He doesn't buy it anymore. And you want to know why? Because his students didn't buy natural selection driven 'evolution' either. They asked him questions he couldn't answer with classical Darwinian arguements. There. That is a whole bunch of biologists who don't buy classical Darwinism. Satisfied?

And you can't say that 'evolution' is the backbone of biology. Biology and genetics and biochemistry do not need 'evolution' in order to stand....at all. So don't think that 'evolution' is even necessary for scientific research to proceed.
When you say that 'evolution' explains the origin of life and its complexity, so do ancient Egyptian creation stories. Explaining things doesn't matter. The question is: IS THERE PROOF? Just as there is no proof that there is a goddess called Nut that holds up the sky, there is no proof that natural selection driven Darwinian evolution is responsible for the origin of life. Actually, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution doesn't even talk about the origin of life. It discusses the evolution of life, given that it already exists in some form. Darwin's work was not on the origin of life. He mentioned stuff about primordial soup once or twice, but that was not his focus. In any case, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution has little to no evidence to support its claims, especially in terms of macroevolution, which is what we are really talking about anyway when we speak of Darwin. Actually, with all the technical discoveries of the last century such as quantum mechanics (for electron microscopes) and DNA, there is a bunch of evidence that goes against natural selection driven Darwinian evolution.

And I never said, or even implied, that scientists were trying to trick anyone. The physicists who gave DeBroglie shit for saying crazy shit like 'particles are waves', and there were many who did, were wrong. They weren't trying to trick anyone. They were just wrong! Einstein didn't even buy quantum theory. Was Einstein trying to trick everyone?

 

[hom36rown]

The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. Sure, there is no single piece of evidence that conclusively proves evolution...but there is much evidence to support it. ToE is what, 150 years old...and every new scientific development supports the ToE...and nothing has dis proven it. There is absolutely no better theory out there. Intelligent Design, certainly has no evidence whatsoever.

You know whats odd, is that everyone who disbelive evolution is religious...hmm, could there be any connection there.

 

[PadawanBater]

This really illustrates one of the biggest problems with the whole 'evolution' debate. The very term 'evolution' is a loaded term. What is meant by 'evolution'? Change? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. Adaptation to environments? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. When you start defining 'evolution' as the mechanism by which, through natural selection, new forms of life arise, the disagreements start.
Ok. You want a biologist who doesn't buy mainstream Darwinism?
Dean Kenyon
There. You want more? Dr. Kenyon wrote the book on evolutionary theory (literally. The textbook he wrote (Biochemical Predestination)is a classic in evolutionary theory.) He doesn't buy it anymore. And you want to know why? Because his students didn't buy natural selection driven 'evolution' either. They asked him questions he couldn't answer with classical Darwinian arguements. There. That is a whole bunch of biologists who don't buy classical Darwinism. Satisfied?

And you can't say that 'evolution' is the backbone of biology. Biology and genetics and biochemistry do not need 'evolution' in order to stand....at all. So don't think that 'evolution' is even necessary for scientific research to proceed.
When you say that 'evolution' explains the origin of life and its complexity, so do ancient Egyptian creation stories. Explaining things doesn't matter. The question is: IS THERE PROOF? Just as there is no proof that there is a goddess called Nut that holds up the sky, there is no proof that natural selection driven Darwinian evolution is responsible for the origin of life. Actually, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution doesn't even talk about the origin of life. It discusses the evolution of life, given that it already exists in some form. Darwin's work was not on the origin of life. He mentioned stuff about primordial soup once or twice, but that was not his focus. In any case, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution has little to no evidence to support its claims, especially in terms of macroevolution, which is what we are really talking about anyway when we speak of Darwin. Actually, with all the technical discoveries of the last century such as quantum mechanics (for electron microscopes) and DNA, there is a bunch of evidence that goes against natural selection driven Darwinian evolution.

And I never said, or even implied, that scientists were trying to trick anyone. The physicists who gave DeBroglie shit for saying crazy shit like 'particles are waves', and there were many who did, were wrong. They weren't trying to trick anyone. They were just wrong! Einstein didn't even buy quantum theory. Was Einstein trying to trick everyone?

Natural Selection;

-the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it works, it's a fact, and I would have honestly thought it'd be pretty common sense. You and me hunt bugs together, I'm white, you're black, our environment is a cave or some other dark area, the predators in our cave don't have great vision, but they can see my white body a lot easier than your black body, I get eaten, I don't reproduce... seems simple enough right... that's natural selection. Nature (the predators, the cave we live in) is selecting which organisms live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genetic code to their offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Nuff said about that guy... What has he contributed to the field of biology???

The book Of Pandas and People is the intelligent design handbook and was deemed unconstitutional to teach in public schools in America... what's that say about that book?

Every single thing in biology comes down to the theory of evolution, everything. Do you know what biology means?

Biology;

-the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

Pretty sure that's talking about evolution...

Give me one scientific theory, just one, in biology that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Genetics -- genetics deals with heredity and differences in related organisms, yep, that's evolution... Biochemistry -- chemical substances and vital processes in living organisms... yep, evolution there too.

I never said the theory of evolution explains the origin of life. I said it explains our origins, as in how we got to where we are today. There is so much proof to support the theory it's laughable anyone still says there is an absense of data, when someone brings up that argument it shows their incredible ignorance on the entire thing. What do you need, fossils, there's hundreds of thousands of them, howbout a transitional species? Pick the era and I'll find you one. Geological data that confirms without any doubt the age of fossils. Carbon dating, radio dating, evolution in the medical field that creates new vaccines that defeat new viruses and bacteria that evolove faster than we do. Not to mention we've SEEN EVOLUTION happen with our own eyes in labs! One good example I can think of is flies. They got a population of red flies and a population of white flies of the same species, breeded them and guess what their offspring came out looking like... seriously guess. The fact that you just guessed pink clearly shows even YOU know the theory of evolution is real and it works. That right there is a clear case of NATURAL SELECTION, the mechanism for evolution that for some reason you're so against...

Name one technical discovery over the last 150 years that goes against Natural Selection.

Einstein has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[shroomer33]

Natural Selection;

-the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it works, it's a fact, and I would have honestly thought it'd be pretty common sense. You and me hunt bugs together, I'm white, you're black, our environment is a cave or some other dark area, the predators in our cave don't have great vision, but they can see my white body a lot easier than your black body, I get eaten, I don't reproduce... seems simple enough right... that's natural selection. Nature (the predators, the cave we live in) is selecting which organisms live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genetic code to their offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Nuff said about that guy... What has he contributed to the field of biology???

The book Of Pandas and People is the intelligent design handbook and was deemed unconstitutional to teach in public schools in America... what's that say about that book?

Every single thing in biology comes down to the theory of evolution, everything. Do you know what biology means?

Biology;

-the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

Pretty sure that's talking about evolution...

Give me one scientific theory, just one, in biology that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Genetics -- genetics deals with heredity and differences in related organisms, yep, that's evolution... Biochemistry -- chemical substances and vital processes in living organisms... yep, evolution there too.

I never said the theory of evolution explains the origin of life. I said it explains our origins, as in how we got to where we are today. There is so much proof to support the theory it's laughable anyone still says there is an absense of data, when someone brings up that argument it shows their incredible ignorance on the entire thing. What do you need, fossils, there's hundreds of thousands of them, howbout a transitional species? Pick the era and I'll find you one. Geological data that confirms without any doubt the age of fossils. Carbon dating, radio dating, evolution in the medical field that creates new vaccines that defeat new viruses and bacteria that evolove faster than we do. Not to mention we've SEEN EVOLUTION happen with our own eyes in labs! One good example I can think of is flies. They got a population of red flies and a population of white flies of the same species, breeded them and guess what their offspring came out looking like... seriously guess. The fact that you just guessed pink clearly shows even YOU know the theory of evolution is real and it works. That right there is a clear case of NATURAL SELECTION, the mechanism for evolution that for some reason you're so against...

Name one technical discovery over the last 150 years that goes against Natural Selection.

Einstein has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.

I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.

Again, I never said anything against natural selection.

You bring up Dean Kenyon's (that was just one biologist you asked for that doesn't buy classical Darwinsim anymore, and he wrote the book on biochemical predestination. Dont forget his students didn't buy it either) book about pandas when I mentioned the textbook, Biochemical Predestination, that was used in mainstream colleges.
Bringing that up to knock down what I have previously written, which has nothing to do with the panda book, is way fallacious, and it's also an Ad Hominem attack on Dr. Kenyon. Nice try though. Try actually challenging what I wrote by not building strawman arguments to win your case. Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't seem that you did.

And let me guess what happened with your flies. At the end...let me guess what they had.....FLIES?! Am I right???
That doesn't prove anything about the origin of new kinds of animals. It is just variation within a kind, which is not the creation of a new kind.

 

[shroomer33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Nuff said about that guy... What has he contributed to the field of biology???

You don't get Professor Emeritus status at San Francisco State by not contributing to your field.

 

[CrackerJax]

You need only look in the mirror for a representation of natural selection....

 

[hom36rown]

Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.

I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.

Again, I never said anything against natural selection.

You bring up Dean Kenyon's (that was just one biologist you asked for that doesn't buy classical Darwinsim anymore, and he wrote the book on biochemical predestination. Dont forget his students didn't buy it either) book about pandas when I mentioned the textbook, Biochemical Predestination, that was used in mainstream colleges.
Bringing that up to knock down what I have previously written, which has nothing to do with the panda book, is way fallacious, and it's also an Ad Hominem attack on Dr. Kenyon. Nice try though. Try actually challenging what I wrote by not building strawman arguments to win your case. Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't seem that you did.

And let me guess what happened with your flies. At the end...let me guess what they had.....FLIES?! Am I right???
That doesn't prove anything about the origin of new kinds of animals. It is just variation within a kind, which is not the creation of a new kind.

So do you believe humans have been around forever, and that we coexisted with dinosaurs...or did god just create us a couple million years ago

 

[PadawanBater]

Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.

I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.

Again, I never said anything against natural selection.

You bring up Dean Kenyon's (that was just one biologist you asked for that doesn't buy classical Darwinsim anymore, and he wrote the book on biochemical predestination. Dont forget his students didn't buy it either) book about pandas when I mentioned the textbook, Biochemical Predestination, that was used in mainstream colleges.
Bringing that up to knock down what I have previously written, which has nothing to do with the panda book, is way fallacious, and it's also an Ad Hominem attack on Dr. Kenyon. Nice try though. Try actually challenging what I wrote by not building strawman arguments to win your case. Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't seem that you did.

And let me guess what happened with your flies. At the end...let me guess what they had.....FLIES?! Am I right???
That doesn't prove anything about the origin of new kinds of animals. It is just variation within a kind, which is not the creation of a new kind.

Dude, you obviously do not understand natural selection if you harp on it like this, it doesn't make any sense. NS is just a mechanism for evolution to work, it's a word that describes a process, that's it. There are six processes involved in the theory of evolution; adaptation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, speciation, and natural selection... all equally as important to the theory, and all have more than enough evidence to prove they exist and work how they're described to work.

I'd suggest checking out some videos on youtube, specifically the ones by DonExodus2 and AronRa. Go check both of those guys' channels out, DE2 is an evolutionary biology student at Chappel Hill in NC, his vids are top quality.

Natural selection is not the only thing involved in changing one species one generation into a completely different species a thousand generations later. Do you know what makes one species seperate from another? The ability to create fertile offspring. That's why some species can look very similar to eachother. There's five other processes involved in the entire process.

Natural selection is not harmful to information inside DNA. Explain that. Why do you think it's harmful?

It seems reasonable that a theory that produces the best organs, appendages, features, characteristics, abilities, improvements, etc. would continually succeed at what it does...doesn't it?? The theory says "this is the stuff that will survive the longest because it's best suited for the environment that it's in"... and damn, that's exactly what we see! Evolution is blind and guided by the environment the organism is in... the environment gets warmer, the organisms will have to develope better features to adapt to the warmer climate, like how reptiles have scales... the ones that don't, die, the ones that do, survive and reproduce.

Mutations are what change one species into a new one.

I said give me one biologist who questions the theory of evolution. That guy is as much a biologist as Kent Hovind. No real, credible scientist believes in intelligent design, that's seriously embarrassing! And he's the guy who wrote the book on it. Show's you how credible he is. Got anyone else?

How do you explain one generation of flies being one color, then their offspring being a completley new color? The only way is through evolution.

What theory do you believe? Do you believe in intelligent design?

 

[CrackerJax]

Only one caveat Paddy, I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the process is trying for long term. Just what fits at the moment.

Nature does not seek perfection, just "good enough". There is no plan. I think that is what drives the thumpers nuts..... no lead to perfection and no overall plan, just what is.