mooeypoo

For the sake of consistency and educational purposes for the way scientific discussions probably should be done here, here is a list of proper scientific resources that support evolution. I must say that if we go at the challenge of posting "all evidence" we will have a very very long very very arduous task, since there are quite a LOT of evidence for evolution, from multiple angles, multiple fields, and over a large span of time. That said, you can start here: Evidence for evolution by natural selection. http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf The Science of Evolution (Berkeley, includes references within): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01 Smithsonian Institute, Evidence of Evolution (references within) https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence Evidence of common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Yes, I know this is wikipedia, but in this case, it isn't a source of its own, but it is a source of the LINKS for peer reviewed evidence. There are 137 references linked in that article, as references for peer-reviewed articles, and the article does a good job describing their meaning and linking to the source. There are more, if you insist. Enjoy. ~mooey

Not it isn't / Yes it is! / No it isn't / Yes it is! / NO IT ISN'T! / YES! / NO! / YES! / NO---- do you know what solves this rather repetitive exchange? Actual evidence. Please read Phi's post above. This is clear indication that you go at this discussion with a CONCLUSION already set, but let's move on to the actual link. Here's the thing: This page is full of quotes that were taken (supposedly) out of peer reviewed papers. Why are there no links to the ACTUAL PAPERS so we can read the context? The only links on this page are to a non-reputable non-science organizations, like the Discovery institute, which is a creation/intelligent-design specific source. This is rather easy. We asked for peer-reviewed evidence, not quotes without context that might be misquoted. Can you find us those peer-reviewed papers so we can discuss the source and not a potential interpretation? Alternatively, you could go over the beginning of the thread and read the sources that were posted there. Just an idea. Not always, which is why you need to show it, and not just tidbits of quotes without source and without context. You found one sentence from one scientist. Great, I guess it's a start. This, however, is out of context, and it's a far cry from saying that a peer-reviewed scientific paper supports your claim. "Encoded within DNA" suggests that there should be another mechanism to decode this so called information -- which is what RNA is doing and what was previously explained in the same context in this thread and others. You're just quote-mining right now. You are moving the goal post as well as ignoring the links we put forth to you. Stop claiming you read our links, it's clear you hven't. Please go over talkorigins page again; I feel like copy/pasting half the resource every time you're making a claim YOU think is novel, and we've heard multipole times before (and answered successfully on multiple places, including TalkOrigins) We're not here to entertain your preaching. Please cooperate on an intellectually honest discussion. Thanks. ~mooey

One wrong does not make a wrong reply right. We still require civility and patience in this forum, and quite honestly it makes moderator's lives a lot harder when more than one person is at fault of not following the rules. If you see something that upsets you, report it. It will make handling the situation a lot easier. ~mooey

I might have misunderstood your main point. I didn't think you were saying hitler used science and not religion, what I was meaning to make as a point is that it's hard to point out what hitler actually "used" because whatever he did "use", he ended up pretty much abusing. I was more interested in what I understood from your last point that there might be some comparison between something that's happening in the US (whether it is removing philosophers and adding Nietsche or anything else) and the Nazi regime or way of thinking. I think that comparison is lacking, and this is where your logic fails, because it seems like when you say that "may be if there is a strong preference for science and reason we will be okay" it means that the "only thing" (or almost only) that "saves us" from going the route of the Nazis is science. That would hint that what we do with philosophy is what the Nazis did with philosophy, and I think that's absolutely wrong - which makes your leap to compare the two cases flawed logic. I think I wasn't as clear as I intended to be, but I hope this clarified my meaning? Lots of things were influencial in Nazi germany in a wrong way; that's my point, the Nazis mostly ABUSED these studies; it doesn't mean that if we study these people (even if we emphasize them on the expense of others) we go the same route too. I frankly don't know enough about the trends of philosophy in US colleges to judge this. I took about 4 political science and philosophy classes in college, and only in one of them we mentioned Nietzche, and it was a very brief mention. From *my* personal experience, I haven't seen this trend, but I am aware my own experience might very well not be an exampe for a norm. Then again, my point is that it doesn't matter -- even IF we go that route, the comparison to the Nazis is lacking because they abused the messages of the philosophers and twisted themeanings for propaganda-specific education. I hope you're not claiming US colleges do that... and if they don't, then the comparison is lacking. See what I mean? Not everything German is Nazi. Even I know that, and we have quite a bias "against" Germany in Israel. In fact, Germany has quite a lot of extremely useful social structures and we absolutely have been using them all over the world. "Bureacracy" is a german concept; and whether or not we like the extremefication of it (which is what the dismissal of the word usually mean in day to day language) the main concepts are sound. There are a lot of German philosophers that are smart and influencial ad should absolutely be studied. To say that if we adopt German institutions and bureacracy of government (which existed MUCH before WWII all over the world) will make us like Nazi Germany is beyond leap of logic, it's ridiculous. If that's what you're claiming, then this is where I state your logic fails. What do you mean by "their" institutions? Nazi Germany, or general concepts that happened to have started in Germany some time in the past? Also, Nazi Germany didn't JUST use german philosphers and science, and abused things like Hollywood movies methodologies to create powerful propaganda. Should we ban hollywood as well? I am not sure I understand what you're claiming, what institutions you're talking about, and how the US might be going towards being Nazi Germany at all. Quite frankly, I'm a bit at a loss. Can you clarify what exactly you mean here? All over the world there are countries with different cultures that never came close or were anything like Nazi Germany. Obviously, it's not just about being different culture. Are you really suggesting our culture currently comes anything close to the culture of Nazi Germany? That's quite a claim, Athena. Before I answer this, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If this is what you meant, please tell me what aspects of the US culture you think are similar to Nazi Germany enough to be at risk of bringing that horrible regime onto democratic United States. ~mooey

I don't care if the scientists are secular or religious. I want papers that are peer reviewed. I also don't care for what is "common knowledge". Common knowledge is inferior to actual scientific evidence. You're in a science forum, Elshamah. You can't possibly be surprised we require science-grade evidence. ~mooey You have an obligation to follow our rules, as you have agreed to them when you registered to the forum. Our rules and etiquette clearly states you must supply proper evidence, and answer counter claims. We don't expect you to answer every tiny tiny claim you may have missed, but at this point, you are dismissing claims we are making and insisting on posting non-scientific answers as replies. That's not quite acceptable here. Feel free to go over the rules you agreed to when you joined, and remember you are the one who came to us, not the other way around. You chose to debate under our rules, the rules of scientific argumentation, and you need to follow this concept. ~mooey

Can you quote a peer-reviewed publication, seeing as others here (and talkorigin too) use those to define some minimum of properly done science? We can all dismiss claims with "BS" and post random stuff. We're a science forum, though. We have a minimum set of requirements -- based on the scientific method -- for evidence that support claims. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Thread moved to the speculation forum. Actually, as the person making the claim, it is your responsibility to support it. We have an open mind, but there are quite an extensive amount of evidence to show you are wrong -- and the only way to convince us that the physical laws (that are extensively described mathematically, and are predictable and repeatable) are false, you need to show it. We can predict exactly what would happen if we drop object X towards object Y and/or throw two objects towards one another. If you ever played pool or snooker, you probably experienced some of it yourself. We can accurately predict these things with established equations that work consistently. Can they be wrong? Sure, maybe, but you would need to show us (a) how they're wrong, (b) what describes that force better, namely how you propse that it works and © why is it they worked so far when your proposed theory seems to be completely reversed to the existing one. Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. You need to show it physically and mathematically. Go ahead. ~mooey

Actually, the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid. If we're already being petty

I don't think it was obvious to us at all, since we thought you kept repeating them. The better solution than just "copy/pasting" this entire chunk of text would have been to answer our specific claims about your fallacious arguments with why you think we're wrong. Look, you have to understand that there's a difference between what you mean and what it comes across, and when that is the case, you need to be careful, perhaps, how you phrase things. It did not sound like you're interested in scientific answer to how life came into existence -- it sounded (and do go over your initial posts) like you are setting a trap to "Atheist Biologists" so you can show how their explanations are wrong. If you didn't mean to do that, at least take into consideration that this is how the tone of your replies made it sound like; you seem to have been very much leading towards the religious aspect (which is why the thread was split and moved to religion) and kept dismissing claims with logic that didn't quite bode well with the other debaters. I'm glad you want to learn more, and you should if you are interested in this. But part of learning science is willing to try and shed off your preconceptions and go by what the evidence shows. That means that you will need to stop going at it with the *conclusion* that intelligent designer did it, and instead hold off on a conclusion until you go over the evidence as a whole. That is part of what much of the posts in this thread are aimed at. And same for the other thread, where the religious tone was only slightly more subtle, and why it was allowed to stay in the mainstream science despite some clear creationism undertones. The concept of randomness is hard on everyone to accept, it's not an intuitive issue at all. But you should take into consideration that quite a LOT of what we know about the universe is counter-intuitive. Sadly, nature has no consideration for what we think is "nice" to understand. I wish it did, really, it would've helped me a lot during my finals... Anyways, I really do think it's great that you take the time to study about this. I am not posting this as an intention to bash or offend you. I want you to be mindful of how your posts came out, and how it seems that your undertones shows you have the conclusion already relatively firm in your mind. That tends to be frustrating to both sides. ~mooey

I don't quite see how this comparison is valid at all. Hitler didn't use science, he abused science. In fact, he abused quite a lot of things in his (quite sadly brilliant) use of propaganda. He abused the way movies are made to enrage young people and send them on violent rampages against Jews and minorities. He abused the sense of national pride Germans had along with the then-recent humiliation after the sanctions (quite extensive ones) that were in place in Versailles Treaty after the loss of World War I. He abused the scientific theories and twisted their meanings to present the German people as "the strong" and "the fittest" that survive over the weak and unsuitable in the evolutionary "battle". He abused the education system to brainwash children and recruit them to a militant racist group and later on to the S.S. and other Nazi groups. He abused the democratic system in Germany to achieve a completely (and indisputable) Dictatorship. I am not quite sure how this means anything about the state of science in the US or anywhere in the world, and/or whether or not colleges in the US replace philosopher with Nietzsche, even if it's true. On top of all of this, it's absolutely false to say Hitler rejected religion. There are multiple and quite extensive pieces of evidence showing clearly that he was far from an atheist. What he was fighting was to have control above the church (so the church does not steal his influence) which seems to be the reason why some of the elements of the Church were reduced in Nazi Germany. However, he was a staunch opponent to Atheism, and spoke about God and how the Arian nation is God's chosen people a lot in his Mein Kampf and other speeches. (This is a decent article with links to quotes. There are more, if you want me to pursue this angle of the debate: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm) I think your leap here is far from logical, Athena. I'm not entirely sure what it is you're claiming, or what you're afraid of exactly in that aspect. No doubt we need to be mindful not to repeat history, but I don't see how even if campuses across the US replace philosophers with Nietzsche that immediately means anything about going towards Nazism. Maybe I misunderstood you.. if so, please clarify. ~mooey

From your own claims it doesnt sound like you do. I'm sorry, but you seem to expect us to write down years and years of evolutionary biology research and knowledge in a forum post, just to convince you. That's not the way things work. Everything you claimed so far was either unsubstantiated or plain demonstrably wrong -- the data is available, and the answers -- THE DIRECT answers to the points you made specifically -- are addressed in those links. You came to us, Elshamah, and we are a science forum. YOU are the one making a claim about intelligent design, and you are the one in need of proving it -- not the other way around. If you don't have the time or patience to go read and learn about the theory you insist on fightiing against, I suggest you fight against it elsewhere. No one will take you seriously if you insist on us teaching you hundreds of years and thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence piece by piece in a forum thread. C'mon now. It's annoying not because we don't have the answers, but because the answers were answered SO MANY TIMES in the past that they're readily available -- and were posted for you multiple times. You seem to be acting as if "if it's not posted *here* it doesn't exist" and that's loads frustrating. It's also not going to result in a proper discussion. It's all there, and the answers are direct and plain to read. Don't be intellectually dishonest; read it properly -- if you have questions about specific aspects of the theory, we are here to help. We're not going to do the work for you or pretend the theory is unsound just because you don't like it. Also, ICR are (to say the least) not using any form of the scientific method or anything resembling a proper research method. I would be careful quoting their work as any form of evidence. ~mooey That is CLEAR evidence you haven't read the link I posted within talkorigins. That page explains the evidence that exist and whtever's missing. We'd love to discuss things, Elshamah, but seriously, you need to cooperate. ~mooey

There's no proof for this, and as lovely as the ICR ""research"" (notice the double-double quotation marks) tries to twist things, they are doing it while twisting the known facts, burying known evidence, and ignoring known explanations. You know, you should really go over this site: http://talkorigins.org/ It might help going over what "the other side" actually says in response to the claims made by the ICR. If the icr is right, you have nothing to lose. Actually, for the sake of learning you have nothing to lose even if you end up disagreeing with the entire scientific community. But do go over some of the claims there, they answer the vast majority of the claims made, and they do it a lot better than what any one of us would be able to do on a short time in a discussion forum. Look for the relevant claims, see the answers. A useful place to start is here, about abiogenesis and the possible origin of life: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ ~mooey

So let me get this straight. God will readily help this christian guy: But not these non-christian children: Now that's some almighty God. Te point was to show you that without proper CONSISTENT tools, you can't discern between nonsense and non-nonsense. Not that it'll help. I feel like we're all talking to a thick wall. Dude, seriously, I refer you back to the picture initially posted by iNow, which I can't find at the moment and I'm sure he could help remind you of. Lalalala is an understatement by now. You're clearly not even remotely interested to listen to any sort of claim from anyone. Why are you here, then? Preach? If so, it seems you need some practice. ~mooey

Well, according to this definition, seeing as you don't feel your brain, and you would need a powerful saw (and a Doctor, preferably) to see it, you should be skeptical it exists. Is this the case, or have I finally demonstrated why your arguments are inconsistent?

If you said that, and that's your definition of "fact" then we really don't have much to discuss here do we?

I take it as blatantly ignoring the scientific method and our rules. Consider where you are, please. You came to a SCIENCE forum. You need to comply with the rules and methodology given by science. Otherwise, go debate in a theology forum, I'm sure you'll have a lot more consensus. I don't understand, you're quoting something you didn't say?

Doesn't clapping result in fairicide?

I have to check how the english one works.. I wonder if they just attached random values to letters or if they transliterate to hebrew or something. And yes, it loads of fun, imagine doing that in your notebook during a boring class in school... ah, nostalgia.

Abiogenesis* I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that if you don't understand it, it is not possible. I am not saying this to offend you, I'm just recognizing a couple of what I see as misconceptions in what we know about DNA. Others have supplied some very useful links and I suggest you get into how DNA works and what abiogenesis actually means a little further before arguing these fine points that are not quite as problematic as you seem to think. Second, what baffles me is that you seem to come from the initial conclusion that something MUST have intentionally created DNA, and most of your claims come from this premise. A lot of things have "no purpose until they're used". Why is this a surprise, or why does this mean someone created them? On top of that, there are a lot of things with seemingly no purpose at all -- why would anyone create these to begin with? Vestigial organs are only one small example, we can see quite a lot more, like Black Holes or supernovae on the far reaches of the universe. What's their "purpose"? Why would anyone create vestigial organs without purpose? You seem to be looking for a purpose here, but ignoring the things that seemingly have no purpose. I don't quite see how this thinking is consistent.

Yes, I know, I gave the 4.59 (which I found on several places) as a sort of "measure" to see that the emergence of life at about 3.5 billion years ago wasn't "quick" -- it took about a billion years or so between the formation of the earth to the emergence of some sort of life. What you explained in terms of WHAT had happened to the earth all the way from "formation" to that time is exactly what I meant when I made the remark about "the state of the Earth during the formation of the biological molecules" -- whether the timespan is short or fast is irrelevant if we can explain it, and we can. *BUT* the timespan is also not as short as McDougall pointed out from the formation of the earth. I do see what you're saying, but I was trying to make a point and I think I wasn't clear enough.. ~mooey

It didn't happen so fast; the Earth is 4.59 billion years old, not three, and biological activity is suspected to have risen 3.8 billion years ago. From the emergence of biological structures, it started speeding up -- as is logical because of chemical reactions. We're talking about billions of years, not hundreds or thousands. It's not a short time, and it's far from quick. Also, the theories that suggest how abiogenesis happened support the timeline and the state of the Earth during the formation of the biological molecules. There's not much of a problem in this aspect of the theory. ~mooey

No, human blueprints arise by a thinking mind. There are quite a lot of 'blueprints' that are natural and did not arise by a thinking mind. At least, there's no shred of evidence that they were. By this 'statistics' alone, we should be aware that non intelligent blueprints are more available than ones that 'thinking minds' created. Also, if an intelligent designer did the blueprints for our bodies, then the intelligent designer is a really bad engineer. The blueprints suck, quite honestly, with vestigial organs and a combined plumbing, I wouldn't pay a dime to this designer if he offered to design anything for me. Even if there was a designer, he (or she) seems either incompetent, or with a really bad sense of humor. That said, you AGAIN misrepresent the theory. No one says life arose by chance. We can't argue a nonexisting argument. Now that's ironic, coming from you who claims an intelligent force created the universe. How could *you* possibly know? As stated multiple times before, we actually have a pretty good idea how things started out. We have this idea because we can replicate the small steps that are required in the process in a lab. Since no one can replicate the creation story, then if anything, we can "know" more about abiogenesis than we can about intelligent design. That's science for ya'. ~mooey

You're generalizing and assuming, and you're doing both wrong. People pointed it out to you, so instead of arguing about whether or not you should do it, how about you try posting an actual valid claim that supports the original discussion? So far, I haven't seen anything actually relevant outside the somewhat annoying generalizations. Did you look at "project steve" that was linked earlier? You're misrepresenting a theory to support your assertions; people pointed out how and why before, and you seem to skip those explanations or ignore them just to be able to post how "Atheist scientists" say X, as if it has anything to do with religion. I'm sorry, but science doesn't care about belief - anyone's belief for that matter. Science operates with rigorous methodology of substantiation, repeatability and evidence. The universe doesn't care what we believe in, it just is. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims, McDougall, or are you just claiming only Atheist Biologists believe in abiogenesis?

You need a paper and pencil, some time and dedication. At the very least come up with an initial mathematical representation. We can't examine your theory (or its validity) without it, and you definitely can't claim it predicts anything without showing that. No, what you are doing is providing rather empty claims without substantiation. That's not "understanding", at least not yet. Do the work and we can help you examine it. No, we're not supposed to look up YOUR evidence for you. Got a link for us? Post it.

You were told multiple times already. Physics is quite good indescribing forces using mathematics. You might not like this, but that's how physics works. A scientist could have the most brilliant imaginative idea ever, and it won't be possible to check its validity until that scientist manages to describe it with math. You don't have to solve complex equations -- just START by showing us how you would go about describing it. That is how we predict; we don't guess, we don't say "it fit" something retroactively. We describe reality with math. No claims, no wordsalad, you were told multiple times that whatever you claim can easily be either supported or disproved by math. We cannot (and are not supposed to) do this work for you. At the very least, tell us how you could START this endeavor of describing things mathematically. "Solution" implies you worked something out. What, exactly, would you work out without a mathematical model? Otherwise, quite simply, stop claiming you have a predictable theory. ~mooey