The Amazing Meeting 2014

Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Kudos to Genie Scott, science leader! PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Phil Plait   

eugenie_ncseAt the JREF, we're pleased as punch to find out that National Center for Science Education executive director (and two-time TAM speaker) Genie Scott has been named by Scientific American as one of the leaders in science education today. This award, called the Scientific American 10, recognizes outstanding people "who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity."

On their page honoring her, they said:

Eugenie Scott has emerged as one of the most prominent advocates for keeping evolution an integral part of the curriculum in public schools in her role as head of the nonprofit National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

We at the JREF couldn't agree more. Genie, who spoke at TAMs 2 and 5, is a tireless defender of evolution and its teaching in the classroom. She and the NCSE have fought creationists in many states, and are in many ways responsible for keeping back the rising number of politicians trying to wedge religious teaching into the public school system.

At the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005 -- where creationists used thinly disguised Intelligent Design arguments as a wedge to get religion taught in schools and to downplay evolution -- the work of Genie and the NCSE loomed large as consultants for the plaintiffs, and were a major reason the creationists not only lost that case, but did so resoundingly. This is why I personally call Genie one of the Heroes of Dover.

Our heartfelt congratulations to Genie, and of course to Scientific American for showing excellent taste.

Trackback(0)
Comments (103)Add Comment
...
written by Skeptigirl, May 27, 2009
One of my favorite people. smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by MadScientist, May 27, 2009
Don't forget Genie's inaugural Stephen J. Gould Prize:

http://www.evolutionsociety.org/awards.asp#gouldprize

It's great that all her hard work (and others too) is getting some recognition even if I dis the NCSE now and then and disagreed more often than not with S.J. Gould.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
YAY!
written by CasaRojo, May 28, 2009
:-) "your comment is too short". How 'bout now? :-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Uh, a few questions please......, Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by thatguywhojuggles, May 28, 2009
Evolution cannot be proven true unless nonliving can give rise to living—that is to say, spontaneous generation must have occurred. Evolution, in its entirety, is based on this principle. What evidence is there that life arose from nonlife? In his book,which I read recently- Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow



From Dictionary.com
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Says nothing about origins of life... check your definitions before making an ass of yourself. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +18
truth64
written by tctheunbeliever, May 28, 2009
Is Mr. Jastrow a biologist? I don't think I've heard of him. Maybe he should follow thatguy's advice and consult a dictionary.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@thatguywhojuggles, Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Armitage Shanks, May 28, 2009
As usual, you are hiding behind the fact that evolution is based upon an impossible premise: spontaneous generation. No way around it. Sorry.


... and therefore baby Jesus is the creator of the universe. The end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSOac66ppNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRgTxwBYZqM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@Armitage, Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Hutch, May 28, 2009
appreciate your statement, but please answer two simple questions, yes or no.

Do you believe the evidence shows that life can originate from non-life?

Do you believe the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing?


Both questions are not in the purview of Evolution.

As far as Evolutionary Theory is concerned, God (of whatever nine billions names you believe in) could have started the universe from the Big Bang and made the various amino acids combine and become self-reproducing life...and it does not affect Evolution in the slightest.

What evolution does say is once life began (and I'll leave it to the abiogenisis experts to discuss that), it changed over time in a natural process we call Evolution--and the evidence for the changes is highly convincing to any who study it.

You are attempting to make Evolution something it is not so you can debunk what it never claimed to explain; A strawman of the first water, if I may say so.

Press on.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +17
...
written by thatguywhojuggles, May 28, 2009
TO: Truth64

All biology is based on this supposedly "impossible premise." Are you saying that biology is false? How about medicine?? Again, Evolution is just the study of life evolving NOT the origins of life. That's another (very young underdeveloped) field.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The fact is life does exist. So it had to be created at some point. I'm guessing your approach is "goddit!"... well, aren't you glad we stopped invoking the supernatural when it came to diseases?? If we never bothered to find out what actually makes people sick (instead of just blaming it on the gods) you'd probably not survive to be 30 years old.



report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +17
...
written by Bruno, May 28, 2009
1) I resemble my parents but not entirely.
2) My abilities and behaviour impact on the number of children I rear.

Would ANY of the anti-evolutionists PLEASE tell me which of the above two statements they have beef with?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Willy K, May 28, 2009
Yo, truth64, you remind me of the movie "Groundhog Day."

But instead of hearing Sonny & Cher singing "I Got You Babe," every morning on the radio, we get to hear you!

You spend the entire day learning the solid facts about evolution from the townspeople and the next morning you have to repeat the same thing over and over.

"WHY CAN'T EVOLUTION EXPLAIN BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH?"

You really fit that cliche of insanity, you ask the same question over and over and always want a different answer.

You said "I used to believe it also."
So what happened? Traumatic brain injury? A slow erosion of your mental faculties from disease or toxic substances? An accurate answer would really help the researchers studying the Human brain. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
@willy k, Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Kuroyume, May 28, 2009
(b)it voliates KNOWN laws


Which laws would they be? Lemme guess: The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Get thee to a book, you moron...

Once again (how many times!!!?), here is a link to a wealth of information: http://www.talkorigins.org/

And, from that very site!! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

You can read, can't you?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Kuroyume, May 28, 2009
To continue:

(a) Immaterial. That chemical and other processes were probably involved in the rise of lifeforms on Earth may be very complicated but not unknowable (unlike certain theological beings).
(c) Show me one concrete cite to 'scrutinized evidence folding like a cheap tent'.
(d) We get offended by the same, ignorant, uneducated, ignoramus questions (yeah, I may have repeated myself a couple times).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Kuroyume, May 28, 2009
Finally, Kudos and Congrats to Genie Scott for her achievements!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
...
written by Kuroyume, May 28, 2009
@truth64:

Let's turn the question around here. You expect us to completely hold up to some evidential basis beyond our current means. Time to put your feet over the fire then.

Do you believe the evidence shows that god can originate from non-god?

Do you believe the evidence shows that god came from nothing?

We have (literal mountains of) evidence and interdisciplinary agreeing correlations that, indeed, so-called macro-evolution has occured on Earth for the past 4 billion years but you can't accept that without having a full explanation for abiogenesis. In the same way, I cannot accept that some deity goes about causing miracles, providing revelations, punishing, giving certain people powers, and such without having a full explanation for how such a deity came into being. "Just is" or "has always been" isn't evidence, now is it?

Have fun... smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by MadScientist, May 28, 2009
We currently do not know much about how life may have started, therefore evilution is a lie and goddidit.

Hmm, yeah, that makes a lot of sense - to a 2-year old.

Born yesterday and proud of it!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by MadScientist, May 28, 2009
Oh, I forgot one of my favorites:

Science can't explain the diversity of species or how life began, but religion can.

"Goddidit" answers all questions. Why do some people get skin cancer if they spend too much time in the sun? Goddidit. Why were the ancient Mayan cities abandoned? Goddidit. Why are there fanatical morons who murder people for their god? Goddidit.

Yes folks, there's no need for any of that edukeshun nonsense, all you need to know is Goddidit.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Abiogenesis? For Truth64
written by jalfarmer, May 28, 2009
“Abiogenesis must be discussed anytime evolution is. This is because eventually, all evolutionists must trace these eons of change to a certain starting point. And of course- that is where the elephant in the room makes his appearance.”

This is not really true. The study of evolution is based upon observation of existing species and study of the fossil record as it is organized within the geological column. This is called evidence. There is no available physical evidence for the beginnings of life that has ever been found and it is very doubtful any ever will be found. All that we can really do at this point to determine how life may have arisen spontaneously from natural causes is conduct experiments and postulate possible scenarios upon which to base a working theory of life origins. Anyone who claims to know exactly how life got started is self deluded, including, and especially, those who claim some god did it.

Keep in mind that the term abiogenesis originally included and was based upon the origin of life from inanimate/dead matter, like the notion that the common fly arose directly from dead flesh before the full life cycle from carrion eating larva (maggot) to flying insect was discovered by employing the scientific method. It was once also thought that food left wrapped in rags for preservation and storage before the advent of refrigeration gave rise to mice because mice were often found inside the rags when the food was unwrapped. That’s why I really don’t like the term “abiogenesis” because its origins are derived from ignorant and superstitious thinking.

“Of course life had to originate "at some point".”

Actually the best thinking now is that there were probably many different beginnings of primitive cellular life in many different places and environments; as is born out by the diversity of life and the various environments and conditions that life has been discovered in; and that most of these beginnings failed to become established or evolve and died off, so the process of life establishing itself and finally evolving probably took a very long time, just as evolution takes time.

“My point is that evolution violates tried and true scientific LAWS in order to even begin! Thats absurd.”

I just love it when someone claims scientific LAWS are being violated without specifying which laws are in fact being violated. I have a pretty good idea it’s the standard set the creationists always pull out of their pseudo science hat, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

“Not quite what sure what your point is but I dont have a problem with either of your 2 statements. (However, how you can use this to even remotely prove macro-evolution would be interesting.)”

It has been pointed that when most creationists are provided with a fossil that fills a “gap” they immediately say that now there are two more gaps. Denial of the vast amount of evidence for macro evolution does not make it go away.

>>I am curious as to why no one will give an answer to my questions. No mean- spiritedness at all. I am just curious.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
An excellent choice
written by Alencon, May 28, 2009
An excellent choice by Scientific American. Without Genie's vigilance the darkness might already be upon us.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Abiogenesis? To Truth64 part 2
written by jalfarmer, May 28, 2009
>>I am curious as to why no one will give an answer to my questions. No mean- spiritedness at all. I am just curious.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Abiogenesis? To Truth64 (attempt 2)
written by jalfarmer, May 28, 2009
“Do you believe the evidence shows that life can originate from non-life?”

Well, once again we are back to abiogenesis. You need to define what you mean by “non-life” so we can get on the same page. In the final analysis all life is based upon chemistry, so if you mean that the various chemicals that combine to form DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc are “non-life” you need to clarify this.

First of all, I don’t believe any thing when it comes to science and the scientific method. Real science is based upon doubt and the on going search for facts and evidence to alleviate as much doubt as possible.

My answer to your question: Yes, there is more than sufficient scientific evidence to support the distinct possibility that life arose spontaneously due to purely natural causes. This is not a belief. Rather it is the granting of a high degree of probability based upon the available evidence. There is a distinct difference. I could be wrong and have no problem making that admission.

“Do you believe the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing?”

Reference my previous two paragraphs concerning belief.

My answer to your question: No, emphatically NO!! Only religious creationists believe in creation ex nihilo. Einstein’s famous formula E= MC² correctly predicted that all matter is comprised of energy. Since you are invoking scientific LAWS I will do the same although I think your understanding of what a scientific LAW is differs radically from mine. The LAWS I invoke are the conservation of mass/energy. These LAWS make a very cogent case that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed because they are interdependent. If you burn a piece of paper you have not destroyed the paper, you have only altered its form. Some of the paper was converted into energy in the form of heat, and the rest remains as ash. What these LAWS obviously imply in physics is that matter and energy have always existed in one form or another, and therefore do not require a supernatural creator to explain their existence.

I have long found it both amusing and sad that religious god believers have no problem with their god existing without cause and being eternal, but they do have a problem with anything else existing without cause and being eternal. They have no problem postulating the existence of a higher order of magnitude (GOD) existing without cause so that it can then cause the existence of a lower order of magnitude. Unless you think this god was just a primordial trigger man that subsequently went on about other business as the deists believe you are left with the absurdity of a causality paradox; if god caused the universe, what caused god? I have yet to hear or read a satisfactory answer to this singular question. I have subsequently dubbed it the just because argument from personal incredulity.

Alan
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
...
written by Willy K, May 28, 2009
The trial transcript of Kitzmiller vs. Dover is fascinating. Judge Jones' ruling was riveting.
The PBS presentation is right next to my DVD about Robert Oppenheimer.
So I guess Genie Scott could be considered a "Manhattan Project" scientist who helped nuke the ID movement. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Skemono, May 28, 2009
Brava to Ms. Scott! A true inspiration.

Abiogenesis must be discussed anytime evolution is.

Only because nitwits like you keep trying to change the subject from evolution to abiogenesis. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution doesn't rely on how the first life form came to be on this planet. Whether it was planted by aliens, emerged from simple chemical reactions, was poofed into existence by some invisible fairy, or planted on Earth by time-travelers. It doesn't matter. Evolution explains how life diversified into the numerous species and types we see today, not how the first life form came to be.

Evolution needs no more explain the origins of life than plate tectonic theory needs explain the origins of the Earth, the solar system, or the universe.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by Kuroyume, May 28, 2009
I have an idea. There are many 'outreach' programs out there (like the JREF Academic Scholarship, ay?). And JREF is an 'Educational Foundation'. Maybe there should be a fund to provide funding to educate someone who, as of yet, refuses to educate themself so as to understand the errors of their logic and thinking. truth64 keeps posting here, repeatedly with the same baseless arguments. Maybe he just needs a paid education to attain 'enlightenment' and to see why they are baseless.

The general approach rarely works at changing minds and accrueing [sic] interest as we have seen in our long struggle. Well, what is better than a person who rises above their current level of thinking to another (being kind and 'pc')? See Susan Blackmore for a case in point. Here is someone who was a dedicated PSI person who, through self-education and experience, is now a bastion against such nonsense. Someone who has come from the 'other side' can be very fluent at explaining the process towards rational, skeptical, scientific thinking. This is something that has benefitted me from time to time as I was once a VERY devout Christian (again, Roman Catholic, Messianic Jew, Pentacostal, Jehovah's Witness) and it makes for a much better tact in dealing with religious arguments when one not only has knowledge but has had the same experiences and can relate their journey in that regard.

While offering someone information is a hopeful endeavor that they pursue deeper understanding, it rarely has edifying results. We need to 'convert' (for lack of a tactful word) one person at a time. I imagine that for each person who realizes the power of knowledge and facts, it may cascade to more of their closest relations and so on (the old 'tell a friend who tells their friends' commercial scenario).

What do you think? And don't hesitate to critique and modify!!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@truth64
written by Armitage Shanks, May 28, 2009
I appreciate your statement, but please answer two simple questions, yes or no.

Do you believe the evidence shows that life can originate from non-life?


As others have pointed out, evolution and the origins of life are different considerations. Since I don't believe in god/s, my answer to your question is more or less yes, minus your loaded and misplaced "evidence shows that" clause.

I hope the origins of life will be one of the great questions answered in my lifetime, along with "are we alone?"

As far as I know, there is no definitive evidence about how life originated. Unless you consider the oral traditions of the many different creation myths to be evidence. I consider them to be primitive philosophy, or to be more precise, "made up shit".

If I had to take a guess, I'd put $95 on the answer being in complex interactions of chemicals leading to proto-life. This seems to be where the majority people with white coats are looking. Once the grey divide has been crossed between (our arbitrary) distinction of what is and what is not life, evolution starts going through the gears.

To add the loaded part of your question back in, I'd have to look at it from the present day backwards rather than the beginning (earth perspective) forwards. The fossil record points to less complex life forms the further back we go. If I extrapolate that just a bit further as the cone narrows towards very simple life forms, it's a small (chemical/prebiotic/quasi-life) jump to life originating somewhere where there was no life before.

I'd also put a fiver on panspermia, with supernovae or the big bang being the slot machines that pay. But that's an outside bet for my own amusement.

The thing is, I *don't know* how life began. You don't either. The difference is "I don't know" is a hell of lot more honest than talking snakes, ribs and mud - or whatever your particular creation myth is.

The unknown origins of life do not change the reality of evolution.

I would add that everything I've learnt about evolution I've had to do so myself. Unfortunately my school purposely withheld the teaching of evolution in our science class. (Our history lessons were equally state influenced.) At least our bible studies were in a different class. If they'd mixed the two, we could have studied Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt?


Do you believe the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing?


The big bang theory doesn't say that our universe came from nothing. Our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and if we play the movie backwards, it points towards a singularity. The relationship between that singularity, energy, matter, what if anything came before our current universe, and time, is obviously another question that still needs to be answered with certainty.

For my own home brewed theory, if it's going to be solved mathematically, I'd say the 'time component' is where the interesting answers are going to come from. Or by changing our perspective and viewing the universe from the perspective of the speed of light. But that's just a pet hypotheses.

I'm neither a mathematician nor an astrophysicist. And what I think is *not relevant* to what the scientific method proves. Humankind has made huge advancements over the last few hundred years in understanding life, evolution, the universe, etc. With each advancement, the "an invisible God did it" theory has got less and less room to move in.

So to answer your questions
1) A qualified yes
2) Mostly no, but infinitely closer to an answer than "Do you believe the evidence shows that my God/s came from nothing?"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
@armitage
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
I do respect your well worded response. So lets examine this closely (something that makes evolutionists shudder). You give a "qualified yes" to the question of evidence showing life can arise from non-life. Obviously, you must believe this impossibility in order to be an evolutionist. Please present what evidence shows this besides "complex interactions of chemicals leading to proto-life". Thats pseudo-science at best. L Ron would be proud.

As to question two- you say "mostly no" to the question of the universe forming from literal "nothing". Or as you put it "that singularity, energy, matter, what if anything came before our current universe, and time, is obviously another question that still needs to be answered with certainty." I couldnt agree more. But atheism/evolution will never provide the answer. Thats not an insult, just a fact.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
truth64 is a waste of our time. Just ignore him/her.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
Keep in mind,
Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
It's just a difference of definiton.
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
Armitage Shanks:
I'd have to look at it from the present day backwards ... The fossil record points to less complex life forms the further back we go. If I extrapolate that just a bit further as the cone narrows towards very simple life forms, it's a small ... jump to life originating somewhere where there was no life before.

Yes, that's why I have no trouble at all including the "origins of life" under the title "evolution". There's presumably a seamless transition from non-life to life to "the origin of species by means on natural selection". We have clues to the possible mechanism of the first but haven't quite got there, but the second part is a mechanism backed by an extrordinary amount of evidence from a diversity of scientific fields.
I don't see a problem here.

BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@billyjoe
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
"...seamless transition from non-life to life to the origin of species by means on natural selection". You gotta be kidding.Also, I love the phrase "we havent quite got there yet" - the atheist/evolutionist mantra. Do you guys provide bumper stickers with that saying?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
As for "I used to believe it also.", I sort of believed there was a god when I was a child because my parents and extended family all believed it and told me it was so.

I also "used to believe" there was a Santa Claus. I never took the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy seriously, for some reason, lack of proselytizers, maybe.

At some age between 5 and 14, it became obvious that gods were silly, just stories some people made up.

I do have sufficient knowledge of the bible to know that that god is the biggest asshole in the universe. I can understand fearing him, but not loving him.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
To be "fair and balanced", Allah is not nice, either, but I have less knowledge of that god due to my background. I could educate myself about him, but my time would be better spent playing with my toes.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
jalfarmer:
The LAWS I invoke are the conservation of mass/energy ... What these LAWS obviously imply in physics is that matter and energy have always existed in one form or another ...

Unfortunately, you are forgetting about gravity. smilies/sad.gif

Gravity is like negative mass/energy. So the total can be zero. We don't know what happened at the big bang singularity, but it is possible the nothing gave rise to mass/energy and gravity.

HOW mass/energy + gravity came from nothing is another question entirely, to which we may never have an answer.

BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@billyjoe
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
"to which we may never have an answer" - saw that one on a bumper sticker also
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
We may never know.
Being on a bumper sticker doesn't make it false or invalid, any more than a fish symbol stuck to a vehicle validates god(s).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@alan3354
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
I thought you said I should be ignored?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
I responded. It must be god's will.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
Or, the devil made me do it. Pick one.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
We see changes in the flu virus every year, or more often. The virus mutates and continues to procreate. The Intelgunt Desine people don't like to hear about that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@alan3354
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
I love the orgasmic reponses to "virus mutations" "new missing link found!", etc etc
You know this proves nothing when it comes to evolution. Mere grasping for straws.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
I think I saw that on a bumper sticker. So it's settled.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
And I saw, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for he gave me polio."
Also malaria and other afflictions, just to prove he loves us.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
truth:
"...seamless transition from non-life to life to the origin of species by means on natural selection". You gotta be kidding.

No, you have got to be kidding. smilies/grin.gif

Firsrt of all, you forgot to quote the first four words: "There is presumably...", by which I mean that the existing evidence would tend to suggest that the transitions are seamless.

Secondly I am arguing your point for you. smilies/grin.gif

Also, I love the phrase "we havent quite got there yet" - the atheist/evolutionist mantra. Do you guys provide bumper stickers with that saying?

Except that you misquoted me:

Here is what I actually said: "We ... haven't quite got there". I was quite precise in my selection of words and there was purposefully no "yet" at the end of that quote. Saying we are "not quite there" means that we are "close but not actually there". In the phrase I used, there is no implication that we will get there some day nor that we won't ever get there. My phrase does not address that point at all.

Please read what is written and don't assume I am saying what you someone else said somewhere else.

BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
I think the Tooth Fairy is a better imaginary friend than the bible god. He's not vindictive, or insane.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@billyjoe
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
I apologize for mis-quoting you. I assure you it was merely for brevity, etc. No ulterior motives. However, I truly wish you would apply your extremely well developed detail oriented personality to the subject of evolution. You just might come around! LOL
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Heads up, kids...
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
...Truth64 is playing you. He's got you worked up into a lather with questions so meaningless they don't even merit any of your brainpower. He is here only to sow hate and discontent, which is ironic because religious people always say they're about love. He has no intention of listening to your well considered and carefully constructred responses, he is not going to see the light through reason. He is only in pushing your buttons.

Ironically, he is doing the Devil's work in a very literal sense. The words Satan (from Hebrew), Devil (from Latin) and Demon (from Greek) all are based in the meaning "adversary", one who comes in and opposes for no other reason than that's his job. In short, exactly what this troll is doing. He forgets that his bible says to love his enemy, and that love is patient and kind. This is what never fails to amuse me about religious types, they are so twisted that they can justify doing the opposite of what they profess is right.

Please don't feed the troll.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
@griz
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
Sorry, but you couldnt be more wrong..about me or my motives. You know well that the questions I have posed are far from "meaningless". They are some of the most important questions out there. Also, I do not consider atheists/evolutionists "enemies" at all. I used to be one, for one thing! Also, show me where I have been personally disrespectful, regardless of the insults hurled at me. I dont take things so personal. They say the most militant anti-smokers are the people who used to smoke. I guess in my case, the most militant anti-evolutionists are the ones who used to buy it. Try REALLY opening your mind and study facts, not ridiculous assumptions with little or no merit.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
Truth64
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
"L Ron would be proud."

"Do you guys have a bumper sticker?"

"orgasmic responses"

"Grasping for straws"

All of those words are meant to cut and sting. They are argumentative and belittling. They are not patient and kind.

You are exactly who Jesus was talking to when he called the Pharisees whited sepulchres. You can say what you want in these comments, you know your own motives. You are not here to discuss. You are here to stir shit. You're a hypocrite and a liar and the poster child for why I, and many others, want nothing more to do with organized religion.

As long as you're here, why don't you answer some questions:

Why do the four gospels vary so widely and contradict each other on a crucially important subject, the geneology of Jesus and the circumstances of his birth?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@griz
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
If those comments really offended you (which I dont believe for a minute they did), then I should explain the definition of "sarcasm". Dry debates and discussions are not for me, nor most others I would assume.
You sound mighty bitter and antagonistic about "organized religion". While you blame us hypocrites for your disbelief, I have a feeling there are other reasons. Only you can answer that.
As for alleged contradictions in the gospels, they are non-existent. If you seriously studied this (which I dont for a minute believe you will)you would see for it yourself. A turning point for me was Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". He and I have gone down almost identical roads. We all have the same evidence to look at, and a free choice to choose which makes more sense overall.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
Truth64
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
I spent a lot of time writing a response which the internet gods saw fit to eat.

Suffice it say that the contradiction in geneology and time frame between Luke and Matthew cannot be explained away. They are simple contradictions. One or the other is wrong.

I'm not offended in the least. I'm pointing out that you are demonstrably acting against the tenets you espouse and you can't admit it. Your pride is getting the better of you. Sarcasm? Is that a tactic Jesus employed often? Love your enemy, sarcastically? The bible has a lot to say about pride.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@griz
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
Jesus used sarcasm quite often (plank in the eye, etc etc). As for the geneologies, one was directed to the Jews and one to the rest of the people. While some names (I think only 3) were ommitted, the time frames match very closely. You will have to try elsewhere if you are fishing for inconsistencies.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Truth64
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
I think you confuse metaphor with sarcasm.

Very closely is not the same. The geneologies do not match. They differ in number of generations. Why does it matter who they were allegedly directed to? Jesus only had one set of ancestors. One or both of the geneologies is wrong.

As to the dates, one says during Herod's reign and the other while Quirinius was governor or Syria. Herod died 10 years before Quirinius was governor. Once again, one or both are wrong. There's no weaseling out of that no matter how much conjecture you pile on the intent or supposed target audience of the writers.

Those are only two of many many disagreements and inconsistencies, but one is enough to demonstrate that not all of it is true. You come in here and berate us for "believing" evolution when we have made no claims that the theory of evolution answers all questions, and then you turn right around and defend an obviously flawed and contradictory collection of writings as infallible. Your plank in the eye example was an apt one, my friend.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@griz
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
Without researching it, I will tell you that the geneology "inconsistencies" are simply not there. Matthew was showing the history to the Jews primarily, yet Luke was showing everyone else, hence the vast difference in number of names. They all go back to Abraham though. As for the reign of Herod, check out how many "Herods" there have been through out history. There is nothing to "weasle" out of.
You are correct, however, that evolutionists make no claims that their belief answers all the questions. It cant even answer the most basic ones. Its a dead end road, trust me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by Kuroyume, May 29, 2009
Actually, if the Yeshua ben Joseph (yeah, right) fable is to be taken (even hyperbolically) as 'historical', then there can only be one set of ancestors from one parental lineage: Mary. Since Joseph was not the biological father (virgin birth = god baby), Joseph's lineage in a biological sense (or bloodline sense even) is immaterial. Makes one wonder if the virgin birth was added after the midrash as descendant of King David was well established. Or it could be that they didn't really care and made shit up.

@truth64:
"to which we may never have an answer" - saw that one on a bumper sticker also


Great bumper sticker for reason and science. Better to admit that one doesn't know from a point of view of learning than to feign knowledge without.

There are problems in mathematics called NP-Hard problems. These are mathematical problems that are very difficult to solve and require at least. An example of an NP-Hard (but not NP-Complete) problem is the so-called Halting problem (wherein an infinite loop occurs). Now, just to make myself crystal clear here. You are obviously not a Ph.D. in Mathematics (neither am I, but for obviousness let's admit it). The BEST Mathematicians ever who are working on a bedrock of Mathematics that goes back at least 5000 years didn't just say, "Man, these are difficult" or "We don't know yet". They have, though complex meta-systemic application (Decision Theory and other fields of mathematics that examine mathematics itself), established classes of functional or algorithmic problems that are very hard to solve and some that are unsolvable. We're talking about a group of people, put together, who might have something like 1000000 years of experience and knowledge between them that has passed relentlessly generation to generation in tablets, scrolls, books, digital documents. And you would say, "That's a great bumper sticker!" and stick your tongue out at them. What does that say about your arguments?

Just in case you have any curiosity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Truth64
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
You'll tell me that the geneology inconsitencies are not there, but I can see them with my own eyes. Take a look, if you're honest you have to see the same thing. They differ in several names, and the number of generations.

They differ the in name of Joseph's father.

They differ in which son of Solomon Jesus was descended through.

You claimed you researched it and now you're saying "without research" you can't answer my questions. In other words, you have to scramble for some other authority to give you some falsehood to explain away these discrepancies, and yet, there they are in black and white. Close to right is still wrong. In ability to answers questions is what you trumpet here as our failing, while all along you have nothing better to offer than evolution does, but you make many more claims for your version that you can't support.

Trust you? You can't even explain why you believe something that is demonstrably false. I'm going to trust you to explain evolution to me? Please. Your credibility is zero right now.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Mistake
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
The gospels differ as to which son of DAVID Jesus is descended through, Nathan or Solomon. One gospel gives 28 generations from David to Jesus, the other gives 43.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
Some people think there is a god, as told in the bible.
It's not possible to prove that's false, but, even if it is true, why would anyone want to have anything to do with him?
There are few humans as cruel as this "god."
Why aspire to be with him?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Alan3354
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
Simple, really. Christianity is black and white, it has a carrot and a stick. No matter how god comports himself, the bottom line is that you must play his game or risk eternal torment in hell. If you look at it in the context of the dark ages when it became dominant, you have to admit that there's really no way to trump it for a method of controlling people. You will suffer in this life, and for a while in the hereafter, but eventually you will be rewarded with eternal life. If not, you will be punished with eternal torture. Until two or three hundred years ago, it was the only game in town.

Today we have science to tell us that the religious view of the universe is unlikely at best, but back then, with no alternatives, who would willingly risk eternity in hell? After two thousand years of indoctrination, western civilization is giving up its superstitions and mythology only grudgingly.

This is why abortion, evolution vs. ID, and gay marriage are such political hot buttons right now. They are the last bastions of religious control in our society. When they fall, religion will be largely irrelevant in everyday life. I hope I live to see it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
To sum it up, god says, "Love me, or I'll hurt you."
Apparently that works with some people, or some people are able to delude themselves sufficiently to go along with that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Alan3354, May 29, 2009
A good bumper sticker:
"GOD says - LOVE ME, OR I'LL HURT YOU"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Fascinating (for a brief while, then boring)
written by pxatkins, May 29, 2009
Seems to me the difference here is when we reach the boundary of knowledge one side is throwing up its hands and saying "Beyond this, we don't know" and the other is saying "We do know." The latter is demonstarbly lying, for whatever reason. Laughably it has labelled itself 'truth.' ... a thief trying to steal the limelight from Genie Scott.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Seems our troll is dispatched...
written by Griz, May 29, 2009
...I'm going to lunch.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by CasaRojo, May 29, 2009
"GOD says - LOVE ME, OR I'LL HURT YOU" REALLY REALLY BAD FOR A LONG LONG LONG TIME!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@griz
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
Hope you enjoyed your lunch. You are correct: Christianity is basically black and white. Truth does not change. Thanks to technology, we are finally able to verify that abortion is an atrocity. As we improve our knowledge, abortions will be performed much less often. Evolution will, in my opinion, be considered on the same scientific level as spontaneous generation (oh wait, you guys already believe that). And as for the gay marriage- if you change the definition of marriage for one group, you must change it for all. If Bill can marry Gary, then why cant Bill marry Gary, Jean and Jean's sister? You probably dont care, but society always takes a hit when we tamper with the traditional family. And there are plenty of stats (evidence) to back that up.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
@truth64
written by CasaRojo, May 29, 2009
"Without researching it, I will tell you that"

Wherein lies much of your problem I'm quite sure. And you have to understand what research you do.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Alan3354
written by CasaRojo, May 29, 2009
"Some people think there is a god, as told in the bible.
It's not possible to prove that's false, but, even if it is true, why would anyone want to have anything to do with him?
There are few humans as cruel as this "god."
Why aspire to be with him? "

*Very* fearfully, to have everlasting life and not be tortured for eternity. They are afraid of an imaginary psychopath. They say "What if I'm right?" Trying to play on our non existent fear. They just don't get it. The FSM must have hardened their heads. ;-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@casarojo
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
"Without researching it, I will tell you that"

I said this only because I was giving my opinion on a question that had been asked. If I found a different answer after further research, I would disclose this. You are straining to find fault it appears. Try aiming that skeptisism towards evolution (your religion).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@truth64
written by superfreddy, May 29, 2009
@truth64 wrote "Try aiming that skeptisism towards evolution (your religion)"

Dude, evolution is NOT a religion, it's science.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@superfreddy
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
Evolution calls itself science, but it more closely matches a religion. What evolutions refer to as facts, are often false (and often ridiculous) assumptions based upon past assumptions. Takes alot of faith to believe in spontaneous generation and other IMPOSSIBLE beliefs.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
@truth64
written by superfreddy, May 29, 2009
Thruth64 wrote: "Evolution calls itself science" No, scientist call evolution science

Thruth64 wrote: "but it more closely matches a religion" How so? Religion is purely based in faith. Science is based on available evidence.

Thruth64 wrote: "What evolutions" I thought it was only one theory of evolution; I didn't think there were many.

Thruth64 wrote: "...refer to as facts, are often false (and often ridiculous) assumptions based upon past assumptions" Please provide examples of ridiculous and false assumptions.

Thruth64 wrote: "Takes alot of faith to believe in spontaneous generation" What do you mean by spontaneous generation?

Thruth64 wrote:"...and other IMPOSSIBLE beliefs" Please provide examples of these as well.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Kuroyume, May 29, 2009
Name assumptions. Such as?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@superfreddy
written by truth64, May 29, 2009
REAL science is based on evidence. Evolution tries to make assumptions appear as facts. Example, how many times do we find extinct animal fossils referred to as the "missing link?" The latest one a few days ago was laughable- an extinct lemur type creature. Other examples have included downright fraud (Lucy).

If you are an evolutionist, you are forced to admit that at some point spontaneous generation occurred. That life arose from non-life. This is an impossibility but the usual response is "We'll get back to you on that one."

Other impossibilities include abiogenesis. And yes, it is relevant to the evolution discussion. As an evolutionist, one must believe that universe arose from literally nothing. Absurd to say the least.

Yes, I would say it takes alot of faith to believe all this.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Kuroyume, May 29, 2009
"Missing link" is only used by media and idiots (of both sides might I add). There is no such thing as a 'missing link' just an ever increasing discovery of fossils that still agree with Evolutionary Theory and continue to bolster it. Noone has yet found a fossil that contradicts it (human fossils in Permian rock or sediment, for instance).

Unlike religion where laughable things and frauds are rarely caught out, look at how incredibly fast the linkage of this new extinct lemur type animal to human ancestry was put against scrutiny. The scientific method may work very well but it is done by humans who are, more often than not, flawed. That is why the method works. It takes into account bias, subjectivity, and other forms of human error by requiring independent, objective scrutiny! Cold Fusion, Piltdown Man, Luminiferous Ether, among other doomed hypotheses or outright frauds are eventually scrutinized, caught out, and put aside for real science.

Lucy is a fraud only in your mind. Piltdown Man was a downright fraud at a time when the science was rather young. Note that the latter was discovered somewhat quickly even then.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Just joined.
written by eriktheweb, May 29, 2009
Congrats to Ms. Scott! I am awaiting the arrival of her book on the Evolution / Creationism debate on paperback. It's getting good reviews in hardcover, and I'm eager to read the latest stuff once it's out.

Regarding truth64 - simply hilarious. He says his motives are pure, but then he casually uses the word "impossible" or a derivation of it to justify his own bias. "Please, brainiacs, amaze me with some of your CRAZY theories!"

truth64, let me ask you this: What is more absurd, that life slowly arose through many long, drawn-out processes of chemical reactions, followed by natural selection and gene mutation, or that a supreme being willed all of it into existence? In essence, both of these ideas fall into your trap of "spontaneous generation" - except one has a potentially natural explanation, while the other is supernatural (i.e. a being who exists "outside of time and space", as Creationists often like to argue).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Truth: Misquoting and Assuming.
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
I apologize for mis-quoting you.

Twice in separate posts!
I assure you it was merely for brevity

In the first case, you abbreviated it by four words that changed the meaning of what I said. In the second you actually added a word that changed the meaning of what I said.
(Yes, I know you had "etc" there smilies/wink.gif )

However, I truly wish you would apply your extremely well developed detail oriented personality to the subject of evolution.

You're assuming that I have not done so. smilies/angry.gif

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
Griz, nice job of not feeding the troll. smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Truth, forget the bibble...
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
I want to hear more about your thoughts on evolution.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...oops, my page didn't fully download
written by BillyJoe, May 29, 2009
Truth,

Evolution tries to make assumptions appear as facts. Example, how many times do we find extinct animal fossils referred to as the "missing link?"

I give up, how many times? smilies/cool.gif

The latest one a few days ago was laughable- an extinct lemur type creature.

My reading on this extinct lemur suggests only that it "supports the idea of a richer biodiversity in recent pre-history". Who is making the claim about it being a "missing link"?

Other examples have included downright fraud (Lucy).

Not a fraud. And not a hoax either. Not even a disagreement amongst palaeontologists. Just a denial by creationists, based on no evidence or false evidence, that this example of Autralopithecus afarensis was bipedal.

If you are an evolutionist, you are forced to admit that at some point spontaneous generation occurred. That life arose from non-life.

I don't think you understand that term. Spontaneous Generation is the discredited theory that the generation of life from inanimate matter is an common everyday occurence.
Evolution has no need of the theory of spontaneous generation.

This is an impossibility but the usual response is "We'll get back to you on that one."

What's an impossibility? Spontaneous generation or Abiogenesis?

Other impossibilities include abiogenesis.

So you MUST have meant Spontaneous Generation above. Well then you are correct, the theory that the generation of life from inanimate matter is a common everyday occurence has been discredited. But it has nothing to do with evolution.

Other impossibilities include abiogenesis. And yes, it is relevant to the evolution discussion.

What is your evidence that Abiogenesis is impossible?

As an evolutionist, one must believe that universe arose from literally nothing. Absurd to say the least.
What theory are you talking about now?
Regardless, whether or not the universe came from nothing has nothing to do with evolution of life on Earth. It requires merely that there IS a universe.

Yes, I would say it takes alot of faith to believe all this.

You're not wrong. But do you have some evidence anyway? smilies/grin.gif

BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@troll64
written by CasaRojo, May 30, 2009
"You are straining to find fault it appears."

It doesn't seem that anyone here has to exert themselves, even a little, to successfully debate you.

"Try aiming that skeptisism towards evolution (your religion)."

No "religion" here. You really oughta start working on a stand up routine. You're getting a lot of laughs here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Evidence for life arising from non-life? You bet!
written by MDeaver, May 30, 2009
truth64 said: "Evolution cannot be proven true unless nonliving can give rise to living—that is to say, spontaneous generation must have occurred. Evolution, in its entirety, is based on this principle. What evidence is there that life arose from nonlife?"

Actually, there is ongoing research into this very question, and evidence does indeed exist to support the premise of life from non-life:

1. June 2009 issue of Technology Review magazine, article by David Deamer, "First Life and Next Life": Details advances in synthetic biology that are helping to answer how life could arise from non-life. Discusses much of the current evidence. Very interesting reading!

2. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00127.htm: Interview with David Deamer (he's a professor of chemistry at the U. of California, see chemistry.ucsc.edu/faculty/deamer.html).

3. www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/educatio...mer1.html: Paper from 1999 titled "How Did It All Begin? The Self-Assembly of Organic Molecules and the Origin of Cellular Life".

I'm not a scientist, but from a layman's perspective it appears to me the current answer to the life-from-non-life question is as follows: (1) Compared to what we know about evolution, our evidence and understanding of life from non-life is not as complete, but (2) scientific progress is ongoing, and new evidence and greater understanding of the process continues to accumulate.

The fields of synthetic biology and astrobiology, where research into life from non-life occurs, should be interesting to follow in the years to come.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by CasaRojo, May 30, 2009
"The fields of synthetic biology and astrobiology, where research into life from non-life occurs, should be interesting to follow in the years to come."

There is soooooo much that we don't know! And knowing that, I don't have a clue how folks like Truth64 (read BS64) can argue from a POV of absolutely NO evidence, a perspective of TOTAL conjecture and imagination. It never ceases to astound me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@MDeaver
written by CasaRojo, May 30, 2009
"2. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00127.htm: Interview with David Deamer (he's a professor of chemistry at the U. of California, see chemistry.ucsc.edu/faculty/deamer.html)."

Neither of these links works for me. smilies/cry.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@casarojo & Mdeaver
written by truth64, May 30, 2009
Casa, glad I could bring a chuckle to your day. Like most atheists, you probably dont smile all that often anyway, so glad i could help. You and Mdeaver (based on the links) appear to be in the "we're still working on it" camp when it comes to spontaneous generation. Hey- maybe you and Mdeaver should apply for the 1 million- if you can prove life can come from non-life, heck, i'll throw a few grand in myself. Seriously, you cannot get around a LAW. Life cannot arise from non=life, but keep working on it. i need a laugh to every now and then (just not as often)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by truth64, May 30, 2009
and to use your quote, however with regards to evolution it makes much more sense:

A POV of absolutely NO evidence, a perspective of TOTAL conjecture and imagination. It never ceases to astound me.

Thanks for letting me use that, its awesome!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
@ Truth
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
Seriously, you cannot get around a LAW. Life cannot arise from non=life
If, as you say, "Life CANNOT arise from non-life" is a LAW, please provide the evidence that makes this a LAW.

BJ

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
... and don't think we haven't noticed you avoiding answering the serious questions. smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by truth64, May 30, 2009
Hey, hope your weekend is going well. First, I havent been avoiding answers, but have been sitting back seeing everyone answer for me. (I didnt bring up any of the Bible questions, griz brought them up I think)Anyway as to the law question, The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. I would put :life from non-life" in the same "law" scenario as a perpetual motion machine. It is impossible.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
About scientific laws...
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
"Scientific laws represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse."

What part of science is based on that law?
What part of science would collapse if that law did not apply?

thanks,
BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
... and could you briefly outline the critical turning points in the history of the discovery of that scientific law.

thanks,
BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@notTruth64
written by CasaRojo, May 30, 2009
The problem that I have with your kind is that you think you know the "truth" about the nature of all. Your type cannot admit to not knowing. You will burn in hell if you do. I find it very sad indeed that your God will not allow you free thought or free will. Yeah, you're afforded free will if you don't mind being tortured for eternity, if you're not submissive and compliant to a ghost that will *not* even so much as whisper to you. What a god! "Service ME or suffer suffer suffer". Good thing god is imaginary or else many of us would find it difficult/impossible to serve a psychotic, spoiled child of a supreme being/boss/ruler/owner.

"Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them."

Yes. Science is provisional (odd sentence construction ya got goin' there though). That's what sets it above and beyond religion. Doesn't it bother you at all that the very definition of faith (within religious context) is willful/intentional self delusion? God demands that you not think, 'don't eat the apple, you'll know stuff'. I think the snake was the good guy in Eden. The god of the bible, as he's portrayed, is severely lacking. I don't care for him, he's all yours. ;-)

Why do you bother with those of us that have no use for an entity like that? You just doin' your job? God giving you points? He tell you that you could sit at his right side or something equally as delicious?

"Like most atheists, you probably dont smile all that often anyway"

Know a lot of sense of humorless atheists do ya? That's too bad. You're hanging out with the wrong crowd. I find the 'godly' peeps to have a far less developed sense of humor. I'll wager that most comedians are of the *non* believer variety of folk.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@casarojo
written by truth64, May 30, 2009
Ironically, I have NEVER brought up the subject of religion on this site. I am here to discuss evolution. How you choose to view the evidence on God is your business. You really should seek counseling for your ant-religious rage. Your mother must have done a number on you.

Billy joe- I have to go for a while. will address you later. thanks
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
I agree with Truth!!!
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
Ironically, I have NEVER brought up the subject of religion on this site. I am here to discuss evolution.

You can't defend evolution by damning religion.
Let's stay on topic here. smilies/smiley.gif

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by CasaRojo, May 30, 2009
Evolution gas been successfully defended in this thread AFAIC. T64 has no substantive answers to questions. Typical woo MO. You peeps want to argue with him... I'll take my leave now.

T64, you assume much. To your detriment. More typical wooness.

Enjoy.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Hey "Truth64"
written by jalfarmer, May 30, 2009
“First, I havent been avoiding answers, but have been sitting back seeing
everyone answer for me.”

Riiiiiiight! I also notice no real effort on your part to rebut any of the rebuttals of your dubious and hackneyed arguments and points. So, why you are here, exactly “Truth64”? It certainly does not appear that you are here to engage in open and honest debate.

“Anyway as to the law question, The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant.”

Not bad, though you do contradict yourself by first referring to these laws as invariable and then pointing out that they may be disproved if new facts or evidence are discovered. All scientific/physical laws are the result of human observations and descriptions of how the universe appears to work. They are not passed down from any supernatural deity. Was that your point? If so where is your “Truth”??

“I would put :life from non-life" in the same "law" scenario as a perpetual motion machine. It is impossible.”

But you fail to point out that we can at least test a so called perpetual motion machine through experimentation and scientific tests. How do you propose we verify your claim that “life from non-life” is impossible? What experiment/s should be performed? What test/s should be conducted? What fact, extrapolation of fact, or theory should be invoked?

You have openly made the claim that “life from non-life” is impossible. Now you need to back this claim up with facts and evidence, if you can. I don’t think you can, and I am sure I am not alone on this forum. Put up or shut up, “Truth64”.

Alan
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Kuroyume, May 30, 2009
"'life from non-life' is impossible" is a asking to prove a negative so the only direction to go is 'reductio ad absurdum' and show that it is possible. Though this may not have happened yet in experimentation, it is likely to happen some time in the near future. There are already experiments that show that amino acids and proteins can be assembled from simple chemical and electrical processes. When someone goes as far as creating from matter and energy a living organism of some simplicity and brevity in an experiment, I expect that truth64 will just say that humans engineered it and, therefore, this shows that only some intelligent causal force (can you say 'god) could turn non-life into life. There is no way to win here except by 1) inventing a time machine and dragging truth64 through history or 2) going to another planet at just the time that simple non-living molecular structures transform into living structures. Great doubt on both ever occuring.

There is also a bit of debate on precisely what 'life' is. Some crystalline structures are checked on all of the base points that we consider. Some viruses barely make the grade as lifeforms. That ambiguity alone makes a great case against truth64's assault.

directly @truth64: You haven't answered a single query directed to you from me. So, I no longer answer your queries until you participate or abate.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@jlfarmer: Hmmm...
written by BillyJoe, May 30, 2009
Not bad, though you do contradict yourself by first referring to these laws as invariable and then pointing out that they may be disproved if new facts or evidence are discovered.

"Constants" can also have different values. smilies/wink.gif
Laws often don't change for long periods of time. They are simply described as "invariable" to distinguish them from, for example, hypotheses which vary often.

In any case, it sounds like a quote to me.
I'm sure if you google it, it will link somewhere. smilies/wink.gif

But I'm pretty sure he just forgot the quotes. smilies/cool.gif

regards,
BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Broken links, et.al.
written by MDeaver, May 31, 2009
CasaRojo said, "Neither of these links works for me."

Looks like, on a couple of my links, I typed a colon ':' immediately after the link, and randi.org's web site software added that character to each link. Remove the colon and those links will work.

The other problem link, to Deamer's faculty web page, wasn't identified by randi.org's web site software as a link. I'll try and retype the link here with its complete prefix : http://chemistry.ucsc.edu/faculty/deamer.html (or you could copy/paste the original link into your browser's address bar).

----------

truth64 said, "You [CasaRojo] and Mdeaver (based on the links) appear to be in the "we're still working on it" camp when it comes to spontaneous generation".

I can't speak for CasaRojo, but my answer to truth64's assertion is: Precisely! That's pretty much what I stated in my conclusion. The fields of synthetic biology and astrobiology are young, much younger than evolutionary biology. Scientific progress usually doesn't happen overnight. Check back in, say, 10 or 20 years and see where things stand. Should be fascinating to monitor the fields' progress.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Steel Rat, June 02, 2009
"Doesn'tAnswerQuestions64" claimed not to have raised religion here, yet delights in calling us all atheists as if it were an insult (maybe it is to the agnostics).

At any rate. He/she/it (I'm betting on "it") has the same life from non-life problem if it believes in the babble. Where is the evidence that a god exists and that said god made people from clay (life from non-life)? Please cite a peer-reviewed study. If it's impossible, then we must not exist.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@ Truth
written by BillyJoe, June 02, 2009
written by truth64, May 30, 2009:
Billy joe- I have to go for a while. will address you later. thanks
How much later?

thanks,
BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy