DescentBB

flip wrote:I didn't say they havn't been found, I said you won't find them.

who said I was part of the search team?

callmeslick wrote:sorry, Sigma, but there is ZERO scientific proof to back up your opinions, there. Sorry, but it IS very clear that man evolved from lower primates, and that those primates developed aspects from their physiology from the same processes that gave rise to birds, and reptiles. Is there incontrovertable evidence of the early stages of unicellular life and it's origins? No, but give science time, and there might well be. As for the proof of a 'creator', that will be harder to come up with. Human belief systems are great, comforting to some and make for a lot of time-savings as real answers beyond 'it was the doing of God' take a lot of work to determine. But, they are what they are: belief systems, not facts. Nothing will change about that.

I do not want to persuade you. Just look again in the eyes of all kinds of animals. You yourself believe that such fine work arose in the process of evolution?
The typical pattern of nature - destruction. Only the intelligent Creator can create, my opinion.

sigma wrote:I do not want to persuade you. Just look again in the eyes of all kinds of animals. You yourself believe that such fine work arose in the process of evolution?

yes, I do. And, in fact, the way it has happened, in response to environmental factors is both amazing, yet obviously plausible.

The typical pattern of nature - destruction. Only the intelligent Creator can create, my opinion.

once again, not true, and provable, as well. Take, the very water and air we need. Nature creates them, daily. Not so much creation, as a complex and beautiful cycle....that, in my eyes, is nature.

Looks like you're bad imagine how difficult the device even the human eye and brain from a scientific point of view, what I did to you a hint. No water, no air, no sun can not create such complex structures. Nature created the world in order to allow life. And not everywhere. In fact, if you have never experienced the fragility of the line between life and death, how cruel nature, I have no doubt that your real name - Adam, and you live in paradise.

sigma wrote:Looks like you're bad imagine how difficult the device even the human eye and brain from a scientific point of view, what I did to you a hint. No water, no air, no sun can not create such complex structures.

but, billions of years of evolution in response to environmental pressures and needs can, and clearly did. It isn't rocket science to conceive of such evolutionary changes. What many people fail to step back and consider are the time frames over which this happened.

Nature created the world in order to allow life. And not everywhere. In fact, if you have never experienced the fragility of the line between life and death, how cruel nature, I have no doubt that your real name - Adam, and you live in paradise.

nah, it's Tom and I live in Delaware and Virginia....not paradise, but pretty pleasant.

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:Looks like you're bad imagine how difficult the device even the human eye and brain from a scientific point of view, what I did to you a hint. No water, no air, no sun can not create such complex structures.

but, billions of years of evolution in response to environmental pressures and needs can, and clearly did. It isn't rocket science to conceive of such evolutionary changes. What many people fail to step back and consider are the time frames over which this happened.

I doubt that if you swim a billion years in the pool, you will grow a tail like a shark. Or a whale?

callmeslick wrote:nah, it's Tom and I live in Delaware and Virginia....not paradise, but pretty pleasant.

It's nice to meet you. My name is Igor. I live in Moscow with an annual drop of weather temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius.

sigma wrote:Looks like you're bad imagine how difficult the device even the human eye and brain from a scientific point of view, what I did to you a hint. No water, no air, no sun can not create such complex structures. Nature created the world in order to allow life. And not everywhere. In fact, if you have never experienced the fragility of the line between life and death, how cruel nature, I have no doubt that your real name - Adam, and you live in paradise.

I've pretty much given up on this experimental topic for lack of traction, but I just wanted to second this--that really is it in a nutshell. There is no proof for what slick is claiming happened, except some very big creative license taken with some very small, incomplete collections of bones (a tooth?!). Sigma has nailed it. Well said. One of the primary arguments that the Creation Museum makes is that information/design comes from intelligence.

The difference, Throrne is this(and it's VERY important). While evidence for my contention is far from complete, it is starting to come together, especially when one considers that the Origin of Species thing is less than 150 years old, as a theory. The creationist idea is a fairy tale, with no proof, no desire to seek proof or any factual basis for the idea, and a foundation of utterly preposterous claims that have ALL proven to be false(coexistance with dinosaurs, to take but one example).

To sigma, you are showing what I was aiming at. In the hundreds of millions of years from unicellular organisms to the present, literally TRILLIONS of reproductive cycles have occurred. With mutational possibilities along every one of those cycles, the mathematical chances for what seem to many people as improbable degrees of change are actually highly likely. Let me try and explain it like this: if you flip a coin, the chance of it landing face up or face down are roughly equal. What chance is there that the coin will land perfectly balanced on it's edge? Seemingly negligible,right? However, if one could toss that coin, say, 14,000,000,000,000 times, the likelihood of that happening sometime along the way is EXTREMELY high, mathematically. That is the sort of probability one deals with when considering genetic mutation and evolution of species. It has already been shown that rudimentary building blocks of life can be made from a mix of common organic chemicals and water, given enough energy input(think lightning, for example), the building blocks of genes(nucleic acids) are pretty rudimentary chemicals held together by very common chemical bonds. Once a helix of nucleotides had been formed from the primordial stew, the whole process gets to be pretty highly likely. And, for a chemist, such a helical formation is pretty easy to conceive of happening.

I'm sorry, I faded out for a second. I think you said your theory takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, with some extremely large numbers, and then you said something about fairy tales... Am I following?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm sorry, I faded out for a second. I think you said your theory takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, with some extremely large numbers, and then you said something about fairy tales... Am I following?

mine at least has evidence along the way, and probability....yours? Neither, and nothing but, "I believe in this(man made) Book. And, not in some far away place, right here on Earth.

I'm sorry, are we debating? I thought we were just bull*****ing! Imagine my embarrassment!

sarcasm duly noted.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm sorry, I faded out for a second. I think you said your theory takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, with some extremely large numbers, and then you said something about fairy tales... Am I following?

mine at least has evidence along the way, and probability....yours? Neither, and nothing but, "I believe in this(man made) Book. And, not in some far away place, right here on Earth.

Yet you believe in man made science, yet man is very fallible.

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm sorry, I faded out for a second. I think you said your theory takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, with some extremely large numbers, and then you said something about fairy tales... Am I following?

mine at least has evidence along the way, and probability....yours? Neither, and nothing but, "I believe in this(man made) Book. And, not in some far away place, right here on Earth.

Yet you believe in man made science, yet man is very fallible.

I believe in proveable, tested facts. The term 'man-made science' is, to be polite, a strawman.

Let me ask you a question do you think some time in the future humans could be created from trance elements and water, sort of from scratch so to say by other humans?

Heretic wrote:Let me ask you a question do you think some time in the future humans could be created from trance elements and water, sort of from scratch so to say by other humans?

If you built a 3D printer with sufficient resolution to print DNA, yes you could if given enough time (note, you need only assemble a single cell and then place it in the correct environment, after that it will self-assemble into a human).

You do know that Floyd Romesberg of Scripps Research has already created two artificial DNA bases. Test tube RNA has also been created in a lab at MIT. Just need some amino acids that fold into proteins which has been done at David Baker’s laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So why is it so hard for people to believe that there might just have been a higher level of being creating life on earth?

Funny…I thought science could only prove something false.

Humans have a half a dozen or so senses that take very tiny bits of information and deliver them to the brain, where those very tiny bits of information are processed into the illusions we call reality.

Humans do not have any senses that can directly detect reality.

Color…illusion
Sound…illusion
Solid objects…illusions
Time…illusion
Speed…illusion
Etc…etc…

Every single thing humans perceive as reality is an illusion, created in the mind.

As you look at this text on this screen, is it blue…what is “blue” does the person sitting next to you perceive “blue” the same way you do, and if you think so…can you prove it.

Point? Point is having unwavering faith in facts is as bad as having unwavering faith in religion.

Facts…lol…humans are to facts as ants are to space travel.

Sounds kind of existentialistic to me, Spidey. I'm all for acknowledging the nature of reality, but doing it only to cast aspersion on the validity of any and all perception might just be courting insanity. That said, I think your last statement is the fairest summation of the topic.

You can tell we both perceive blue the same way by the way we both know it complements orange! [/counter argument]

I'm having second thoughts about calling it quits on this topic. We're on page four, though, with slickster leading the way with 32 posts, 31 of which laugh at the idea of having a debate made up of concise arguments . Flip comes in 2nd with 21, then myself with 13 (now 14), Jeff with 7, and everyone else between 1 and 4. We have a total of 14 posters, which I believe totals 11 or 12 which aren't interested, and 1 who might have thought it's what he was doing. Fun with numbers. Why doesn't the DBB have a topic scoreboard, Krom? ;P

I feel like that if the strongest counterargument to evolution is that we might just all be brains in vats hooked up to the Matrix, then the theory of evolution is doing pretty well.

Make fun of me all you want Jeff, but the ironic thing is my post is based in some of the most recent “scientific” findings. (understanding brain and mind function)

And JFTR it wasn’t meant as a counter argument to evolution.

Spidey wrote:Every single thing humans perceive as reality is an illusion, created in the mind....Point is having unwavering faith in facts is as bad as having unwavering faith in religion.

Yeah, yeah, Descartes' evil demon, hyperreality, blah, blah, blah. Postmodern rubbish. Sure, your brain is an organ that works by creating abstractions, but that doesn't mean you don't experience reality, or at least, healthy brains will experience reality. Don't like gravity? Go ahead and jump off a tall building because, you know, it's all an illusion. In fact, you might actually feel like you are flying instead -- for a little while -- until suddenly you won't feel anything at all. Everyone with working brains will know the fact that you fell to your death.

And what's this "unwavering faith in facts" nonsense? For one, facts are necessarily true and it's a great thing to ground yourself in them. Don't like water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius? Too damn bad. It's a fact. I'll have faith in scientific finding because we can test them and the results are reliable. You know what is not reliable? Using a statue of Saint Christopher to navigate rush hour instead of GPS. It's been said here over and over again but it just doesn't sink into some of your brains: scientific theories are all temporary until a better explanation comes along (thus, not unwavering). These explanations are always better than "god did it." This is exactly the reason all the other gods are no longer worshiped and prayed to for things like rain, sun, health, freedom from disease, etc, etc, etc.

Ever notice how those of us who put our faith in science never seem to get into arguments on interpretation? Now take a look at the plentiful disagreements interpreting the bible by the Christians on this forum. If Christians can't even agree on their own doctrine, than what hope is there of agreement between Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists, and everyone else? Want to know reality? Science rulez bitchez.

A lot of what you say makes sense and it's hard to dispute certain observations for sure. I blame it mostly on indoctrination over a search for the truth. Yet, if you don't see order and intelligent design which evolved from an initial state of chaos you have missed something along the way. Your argument reminds me of that old parable, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." (Note: this is not directed at anyone, just for the premise.) Even Einstein believed in an intelligent design yet without any personal affection to be received from that God.

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[15] He expanded on this in written answers he gave to a Japanese scholar on his views on science and religion, which appeared as a limited edition publication, on the occasion of Einstein's 50th birthday:


Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).[16]

[youtube]HeTpkz0Advg[/youtube]

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

Ever notice how those of us who put our faith in science never seem to get into arguments on interpretation? 

global warming??

CUDA wrote:

Ever notice how those of us who put our faith in science never seem to get into arguments on interpretation? 

global warming??

I also notice the avoidance of my question except for Krom no one else has answered my question.

Again will man be able to create man from scratch in the future?

Heretic wrote:Let me ask you a question do you think some time in the future humans could be created from trance elements and water, sort of from scratch so to say by other humans?

well, sure, but it would require a few hundred years, and have to start with a unicellular very simple organism, and the exact same sequence of environmental pressure. Do I think it can and will be done in culture media with complex molecules(eg-DNA, and more)? Yup.

Spidey wrote:Funny…I thought science could only prove something false.

um,why would you think that? A hypothesis or theory always has to be PROVEN, which means proven true. Science is not a simple matter of the process of elimination.

Humans have a half a dozen or so senses that take very tiny bits of information and deliver them to the brain, where those very tiny bits of information are processed into the illusions we call reality.

Humans do not have any senses that can directly detect reality.

it is very true that what you and I perceive as 'reality', is, in fact, a composite of neurological/chemical impulses. For instance, how a bee 'sees' it's world is very different that how we do. What I don't get is your point.

Point? Point is having unwavering faith in facts is as bad as having unwavering faith in religion.

Facts…lol…humans are to facts as ants are to space travel.

once again, you seem confused. Facts, are facts, not 'perceptions'. Perhaps the definitions involved are human constructs, but mass is not a perception, nor is distance, nor are chemical reaction laws and so forth. Merely because the tools we use to observe(the senses) are based upon neurochemical reactions, does NOT mean 'facts' are suspect. You seem to be determined to put fairy tale stories on the same plane as concrete factual determinations, and, sorry, it just isn't going to fly.

So Slick if we continue down this course and are able to do it, could it have been done already?

“Don't like water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius? Too damn bad. It's a fact.”

At what pressure? With what impurities?

2 + 2 = 4 right? A fact right?

Only if we both agree on what “2” is.

Gravity is a fact, I never claimed that facts don’t exist…but your statement is not a fact, because, I could fall directly onto a ledge and not be killed.

This forum really isn’t good enough to have a discussion like this, this forum is only good for insulting people.

I’ll tell you what I “notice”, some people wont get the “theory” lecture…while others are guaranteed to get it.

And slick. You need to take notes on who believes in what.

...............................

Anyway JFTR, my point was not that facts don’t exist…but don’t put “too” much faith in them. (yes facts need to have credibility, but don't worship them like a god)

Heretic wrote:I also notice the avoidance of my question except for Krom no one else has answered my question.

Again will man be able to create man from scratch in the future?

In my opinion , people never create humanoid , so perfect as a person. This is economically disadvantageous . Any woman can do in the first nine months of the new perfect biorobot from which with the help of psychology can make or geisha , or Olympic champion , or kamikaze for terrorist attacks , or mindless animal that will be vacuumed and wiped the dust in the house, and at the same time to pay taxes.
Furthermore, the creation of artificial humanoids has no prospects of development also for the reason that there is a real danger of uncontrolled and irreversible mutations and the emergence of new diseases that can not handle typical human body. Consequently , artificial humanoids are dangerous even for the whole human race .

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Funny…I thought science could only prove something false.

um,why would you think that? A hypothesis or theory always has to be PROVEN, which means proven true. Science is not a simple matter of the process of elimination.

Sometimes we say that a scientific theory is proven if it hasn't been disproven for a while, but there's actually no way to prove a scientific theory correct in a mathematical sense.

Heretic, I was just watching a show this morning where they have already made some small, odd creatures by deactivating genes or activating dormant genes. So, probably closer than most people realize. I think ultimately that is the goal, to bring back an animal that was, now is not, but will be again. Not by finding it's DNA, but finding the right combination to activate or deactivate. Oh, won't that be a marvelous sight

CUDA wrote:

Ever notice how those of us who put our faith in science never seem to get into arguments on interpretation? 

global warming??

was thinking of that very example. Yes, I disagree with the point that scientists never argue interpretation of data, having sat through enough paper presentations in my life and listened to HOURS of same.
Such debate, until a given matter is considered incontrovertably settled, is the core of science.

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Funny…I thought science could only prove something false.

um,why would you think that? A hypothesis or theory always has to be PROVEN, which means proven true. Science is not a simple matter of the process of elimination.

Sometimes we say that a scientific theory is proven if it hasn't been disproven for a while, but there's actually no way to prove a scientific theory correct in a mathematical sense.

sure, there is. Evolution was a theory, until observed as fact in fast-reproducing species. The only acceptable proof is a preponderance of fact, Jeff, unless they've changed the Scientific Method since my school days.

sigma wrote:artificial humanoids are dangerous even for the whole human race .

I don't agree with you a lot, Sigma, but on this we agree.

Spidey wrote:“Don't like water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius? Too damn bad. It's a fact.”

At what pressure? With what impurities?

These are questions science has answered and flip-like, interpretive reality cannot.

Spidey wrote:2 + 2 = 4 right? A fact right?

Only if we both agree on what “2” is.

Whether we agree or not on what a 2 is does not change the fact 2+2=4. That's the beauty of it. It works regardless of your interpretive reality.

Spidey wrote:Gravity is a fact, I never claimed that facts don’t exist…but your statement is not a fact, because, I could fall directly onto a ledge and not be killed.

Sure, we can introduce all sorts of possibilities into any scenario, and science will have a model that predicts the probability of a ledge, the probability of hitting it, the probability of which part of your body hits or misses it, etc. None of these things change the fact that, given an unimpeded fall from a certain height, you. will. die.

Heretic wrote:So Slick if we continue down this course and are able to do it, could it have been done already?

who knows......so little of the technology needed had been discovered, much still needs to be discovered. No, nothing in the published record would indicate that we are near there, yet. Not sure I see your point in asking....care to elaborate?

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:“Don't like water freezing at 0 degrees Celsius? Too damn bad. It's a fact.”

At what pressure? With what impurities?

These are questions science has answered and flip-like, interpretive reality cannot.

chemists have specific tables for that and calculation routines for exactly those variables. Unless one is talking about an impurity from a completely unknown compound, that is an easy fact to establish.

Spidey wrote:2 + 2 = 4 right? A fact right?

Only if we both agree on what “2” is.

Whether we agree or not on what a 2 is does not change the fact 2+2=4. That's the beauty of it. It works regardless of your interpretive reality.

on what grounds could one dispute a number's value, Spidey. Now you're really stretching for excuses.

Spidey wrote:Gravity is a fact, I never claimed that facts don’t exist…but your statement is not a fact, because, I could fall directly onto a ledge and not be killed.

Sure, we can introduce all sorts of possibilities into any scenario, and science will have a model that predicts the probability of a ledge, the probability of hitting it, the probability of which part of your body hits or misses it, etc. None of these things change the fact that, given an unimpeded fall from a certain height, you. will. die.

or even if one wishes to debate survivability, I will GUARANTEE that you will accelerate downward at a constant rate, easily calculable from the constant, factored by molecular friction, surface tension of your body and other VERY measurable, factual factors.

Why are we even debating this? Are some of you THAT unaware of basic, junior high-school level science facts? Worse, are you aware, but denying those facts? That is sort of sad and pathetic, all at once.

callmeslick wrote:sure, there is. Evolution was a theory, until observed as fact in fast-reproducing species. The only acceptable proof is a preponderance of fact, Jeff, unless they've changed the Scientific Method since my school days.

We used to call theories that we were virtually certain were true "laws." We stopped after our "laws" kept getting falsified when someone tried testing something no one had thought of yet! After Newton, close measurement of planetary orbits began chipping away at his "law" of gravitation, and then Einstein fully laid out the problem.

A test can either falsify a theory or fail to falsify a theory--there's no magic number of tests that "prove" that the next test someone performs won't falsify the theory.