Miss a day, miss it all. sigh.

Good reading though.

shagboy wrote:there are all sorts of inefficiencies and vestigal systems in the human body that shoot phat bullet holes in the ID blimp, but life is pretty fucking crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For instance:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, or less popularly, mDNA) is DNA which is not located in the nucleus of the cell but in the mitochondria. Mitochondria are parts of the cell that generate fuel in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which drives the varied machinery of the cell.

Unlike most of the cell, the function of which is defined by the nuclear DNA, the mitochondria have their own DNA and are assumed to have evolved separately. Human mitochondrial DNA consists of 5-10 rings of DNA and appears to carry 16,569 base pairs with 37 genes (13 proteins, 22 tRNAs and two rRNAs) which are concerned with the production of proteins involved in respiration. However they all need sub-units created by nuclear DNA in order to work.

mtDNA is typically passed on only from the mother during sexual reproduction (mitochondrial genetics), meaning that the mitochondria are clones. This means that there is little change in the mtDNA from generation to generation, unlike nuclear DNA which changes by 50% each generation. Since the mutation rate is easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking many species back thousands of generations.

The existence of mitochondrial DNA also supports the endosymbiotic theory, which suggests that eukaryotic cells first appeared when a prokaryotic cell was absorbed into another cell without being digested. These two cells are thought to have then entered into a symbiotic relationship, forming the first organelle. The existence of separate mitochondrial DNA suggests that, at one point, mitochondria were separate entities from their current host cells.

If you visit the Answers in Genesis site the Creationist 'scientists' tend to tackle these apparent challenges with absurdly reductive arguments. In essence, they lie:

Dr Don Batten, AiG–Australia wrote:It is only to be expected that there would be similarities in many of the genes for photosynthesis or respiration between prokaryotes and eukaryotes—they have to achieve the same chemistry (photosynthesis: light energy + carbon dioxide + water giving glucose plus oxygen. Respiration: glucose (C6H1206) giving CO2 + H20 + energy). Furthermore, they have the same Designer! For an in depth treatment of the concept that God designed things in a way to reveal himself and thwart naturalistic explanations of origins, see [my book] The Biotic Message...It is the atheistic bias of modern practitioners of science that prevents them from seeing the abundant evidence, right under their noses, for the unseen Creator of life. There is more evidence than there ever has been for there being a Creator. Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (see Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3).

Their arguments always progress down a route of scientific explanation, but always seek resolution through self-annhilating leaps in the direction of the 'truth'. They seem to be dedicated to towards advancing a form of 'anti-learning' and continually talk about reestablishing their 'culture'.

I just found this excerpt from Saint Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis. He seems to be quite wise, coming from a 5th century point of view, when compared to a 21st century creationist:

St. Augustine wrote:"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, [..] and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

P.S. Gramsci. Most of these Creation scientists have recieved their scientific diplomas from a school in Queensland, Australia. So I suggest you get off your antipodean high-horse and quit it with the reductio ad hitlerum arguments.

Gramsci wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:yes steve, you're right, my statement as made is bullshit. if you replace the word "science" with "the fruits of science", then is maybe not so bullshit.

I think you better justify this statement as well. I'm trying to understand how the "fruits of science" can be equated with the a believe system that has not a single scrape of evidence to back it up: for example, all religious faith. And how this is related to a method of enquiry.

The simple way to debunk all "faith" based "knowledge" is simple: religion starts with an answer that is an "absolute truth" all questions therefore must match with the original "truth" or are invalid. This is not only obvious philosophically untenable but inherently stupid. Since a god –according to any right minded person- is highly unlikely and there is not a single piece of evidence in the history of human existence that one does exist, all of the teaching, ethics and philosophy of religion is actually written by humans. Therefore we should be patting ourselves on the back and stop thanking a non-existent pan-dimensional super-being for all of mans success, equality stop blaming our faults as a species on a devil.

Science is a method of enquiring about the universe around us: and therefore isn't a "faith" or just another belief system. Rational enquiry starts with a question and then looks to find the most likely and independently repeatable explanation. As for the “fruitsâ€

steve wrote:2) There's nothing "random" about it. Even frequency of mutation is not random, but falls into species- and condition-specific norms.

It's my translation and I messed this one up. I meant to say "stupid", or maybe "blunt" or "crude".

Quote:
"Challenges of evolution that the Darwinistic scenario has no answer for".

I am aware of none.

I read into it a bit and it's mostly mathematical. A guy called Michael Behe for example argued that extremely complex systems are by definition impossible to be "built" in the course of time, because they either function, or they don't. Ergo there must be some kind of "design".

This to me seems like a sound scientific argument. However I believe most anything is possible in maths. Like time-travel.

On the whole, I am on the evolutionist side as well. I cannot recall having a religious intuition ever in my life, and I spent a good deal of my childhood in churches. There are times when I feel a bit shallow about that, to tell you the truth.

However I admire a man like Dekker who is modest about his place as a scientist in the scheme of things and does not believe his efford to be the answer to everything. I'm still with that guy who said that "even when all scientific questions are solved, nothing is said about the real questions of life".

I whish I could read Dutch.

I hear it looks like the result of someone sitting on a typewriter.

steve wrote:Science is a method, not an orthodoxy. It has no agenda.

True, but unlike the days of Archimedes, science today co-exists with technology and is inseparable from it. As soon as science makes something possible, technology will make it to reality. The "good" and "bad" products of this relationship are inseparable.

For example in atomic research, as Oppenheimer has pointed out, it is mandatory to pass through the stage of the atomic bomb since it's the simplest utilization of atomic energy. For civil use of atomic energy, all the problems involved in making the bomb must be solved.

In this way, is it possible to view science as "heinous" because it entails inevitable technological applications and cannot proceed without them.

danmohr wrote:. It's not that there aren't other options on the menu, it's that they're all Boca burgers (read: crap).

You can eat a bag of dicks.

n.c. wrote:

danmohr wrote:. It's not that there aren't other options on the menu, it's that they're all Boca burgers (read: crap).

You can eat a bag of dicks.

Yeah.

I like Boca burgers.

ironyengine wrote:

n.c. wrote:

danmohr wrote:. It's not that there aren't other options on the menu, it's that they're all Boca burgers (read: crap).

You can eat a bag of dicks.

Yeah.

I like Boca burgers.

Thirded.



Eh, I missed the first 6 and a half pages of the thread in one day! Still, I don't understand the controversy at all. When I saw how long the thread was, and saw the topic, I thought - how can a thread be so long when really, among rational people such as those that post on this forum, there should be no controversy on this issue?

There is one significant scientific theory regarding our origins. This theory has enough evidence supporting it that it should absolutely be taught in science class. Competing scientific theories might also be taught as alternatives (I'm not aware of any myself). Also, maybe outmoded and disproven scientific theories as well (I remember we learned about Lamarckian evolution in Biology class, and that it was false). Even a scientific hypothesis that as yet lacks any evidence might deserve a few minutes of discussion in class.

There's no reason at all to give any kind of classroom time to "intelligent design", except maybe in a current events class. It's not a scientific theory or hypothesis. It's not a deeply held belief of any significant segment of the population. It's not a long-held belief by any group in our planet's history. It's a recently created hybrid of stories, basically putting a scientific look on a theistic explanation. It exists only because it's close enough to Christian (Judeo-Christian?) creationism to make people feel like they're OK with God, and close enough to science to sneak into science classes in places where ignorant people are determining the curriculum.

As far as the various creation myths of the various world peoples, a comparative religions class might be the place to teach those, as many as possible. Other than that, I can't see a place for them in the public schools.

Who else it keen to join my boycott of serious -and pointless- threads and get back to your favourite burger and the merits of Rusty by Rodan?

Absolutely.

I am just working on some meaningless trivia shit threads now.

You guys are so lucky to have me.