Happy Birthday Charles: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

[DarkReign]

Cells are isolated systems.

Try again.


Ummmm, no theyre not.

EDITED: whoops, BB already said it.

[z0sa]

:lmao

A cell on earth is not an isolated system.

:pctoss

You don't understand evolution at all. You don't understand the second law at all. You grossly misrepresent both. You're the religious equivalent of a truther.

An isolated system is one which does not interact with its surroundings. Cells have a membrane around them with acts as a buffer between the cell's insides and the outside. DNA specifically codes what is allowed in and out. It is very realistic to believe entropy was not helpful in the laying out of those specific genetic sequences, which chemists apparently have nothing to say about.

[baseline bum]

An isolated system is one which does not interact with its surroundings. Cells have a membrane around them with acts as a buffer between the cell's insides and the outside. DNA specifically codes what is allowed in and out. It is very realistic to believe entropy was not helpful in the laying out of those specific genetic sequences, which chemists apparently have nothing to say about.

Do you even know what entropy means? It's wasted energy because there's no such thing as a perfect engine. Of course it's not helpful. LMAO that you think a cell doesn't need to get energy from somewhere. Yeah, isolated; I guess every cell has its own god in it to create energy out of nothing.

[Brian Adams]

You make a point or two and RandomGuy comes back with a arsenal of responses not seen since the SS attack on Poland, I am very impressed. :tu

[z0sa]

Do you even know what entropy means? It's wasted energy because there's no such thing as a perfect engine. Of course it's not helpful. LMAO that you think a cell doesn't need to get energy from somewhere. Yeah, isolated; I guess every cell has its own god in it to create energy out of nothing.

If the original cell could have reasonably formed some way without total isolation, it would be different. In reality, mixing with the primordial soup and tar created from the mixtures in the atmosphere would have all but stopped any meaningful combination.

These facts require the original cell ingredients at least temporary isolation (allowing for entropy) from the rest of the primordial soup in order for abiogenesis to occur. The only way I can figure evolutionally is if the cell membrane was a naturally occurring element and the right mixture for life, however impossible, somehow formed within. Of course, like said this is impossible as only living things produce the DNA or RNA needed to govern what comes in and out. Go figure an evolutionist would shoot his creation story down though.

Long story short, the original cell could have only been formed through an isolated system. Only isolation from the other things in the primordial soup could have reasonably produced the needed combination to form life.

[tlongII]

Cells have semipermeable membranes. That means they are not isolated systems.

[RandomGuy]

Cells are isolated systems.

Try again.

No. They aren't.

They constantly exchange energy with their environment.

The earth isn't an isolated system, as it is constantly receiving energy from the sun in the form of light.

Please stop lying about this stuff.

[RandomGuy]

I have never visited one creationist website in my life without a specific thing in mind. I don't believe in science to save your soul, I want the facts, and those websites only tell one side of the story just as evolution does.

In other words, I only compare two sides of an argument together, and decide on my own which is more sound.

Bullshit.

Lie to yourself, but don't lie to me, because I am smart enough to know it isn't raining when you are pissing on my shoes, no matter how much you say otherwise.

You not only don't compare two sides of an argument together, you don't even fucking know what one of those sides is, that is bloody obvious to everybody but yourself.

If you tell yourself that you have really compared the two sides of this, you have LIED TO YOURSELF.

This is what you have done so far in your life:

Spent a few hours here and there reading up on creationist websites, and you have wrongly assumed that they are both correct, and not lying to you. You delude yourself this way, because it soothes your ego to think you are somehow some sort of "rebel". Everything you read there is something that you already agree with, and you only read things you agree with.

This is lazy and it is called "confirmation bias". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

You have NEVER EVER, gone to any evolutionist website for longer than a few minutes once or twice. You have NEVER EVER checked and see for yourself if what the creationists say stands up to the most basic of fact checking. You have NEVER EVER actually educated yourself on what the theory of evolution actually *IS* or says.


That isn't being open-minded, honest or truly considering both sides of the issue.

It is fully your perogative to lie to yourself all you want, but don't ever lie to me and say that you have fully considered both sides of this issue, because I know better.

[RandomGuy]

Cells have semipermeable membranes. That means they are not isolated systems.

The only real isolated system here is the bubble of pseudo-science that seems to be surrounding a certain young lads brain...

THAT is truly in impermeable barrier.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy = another intellectual who loves to prove people wrong and make them feel stupid.


Maybe I am.

But that doesn't make me a liar, nor does it make what I say wrong.

You, on the other hand, have lied rather obviously to me on a couple of occasions, and have proven yourself to be closed minded and biased, despite what you think about yourself.

Perhaps someday you will move beyong your intellectual comfort zone and truly challenge your own assumptions, learn something about science that isn't spoon-fed to you by people with every motivation to lie about real science.

I can only hope. Good luck. :toast

[Blue Jew]

I have to hand it to this z0sa guy he comes on strong and does not give up he puts on a good fight. But at the end of the day this Randomguy fella has scoreboard on him.

[RandomGuy]

I have to hand it to this z0sa guy he comes on strong and does not give up he puts on a good fight. But at the end of the day this Randomguy fella has scoreboard on him.

Oi vey!

[Sec24Row7]

ROFL...

How are we faking stratigraphy again?

Law of Original Horizontality isn't real?

I'm VERY interested z0sa.

VERY interested.

[RandomGuy]

ROFL...

How are we faking stratigraphy again?

Law of Original Horizontality isn't real?

I'm VERY interested z0sa.

VERY interested.

But, but, but, I read it on a creationist website.

They would have no motivation to lie to me would they?

[DMX7]

Only the lies. Like how WTC7 fell at free fall speed and no plane hit it. How Rice , Bush and Rumsfeld claim they had no idea a plane could be used to attack the WTC when in fact years earlier they conducted an exercize with that same WTC attacks?

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline


You see what separates me form yourself i can admit when something doesn't sound right. You can't since your so in deep with your beliefs your ego would not allow you to admit when you may have doubts.

You rather burn in hell than admit thier is a God and you rather put your head in the sand than to ask question about 9/11.

Your weak.

You're weak. How about learning some grammar too, buddy?

[Alex Jones]

You're weak. How about learning some grammar too, buddy?


1996 called they want their grammar smack back.

[marini martini]

Oh how did I miss this???:toast

Happy belated Birthday Charles, hope you had a good one!:birthday:

[z0sa]

ROFL...

How are we faking stratigraphy again?

Law of Original Horizontality isn't real?

I'm VERY interested z0sa.

VERY interested.

"As one of Steno's Laws, the Principle of Original Horizontality served well in the nascent days of geological science. However, it is now known that not all sedimentary layers are deposited purely horizontally."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_original_horizontality

[z0sa]

But, but, but, I read it on a creationist website.

They would have no motivation to lie to me would they?

I have read many, many more times pro-evolutionist material than creationist and NEVER go to creationist websites. Evolution can and has been disproven by science, I don't need creationists to back me up all I need is science. This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I am confident with the information I have attained, evolution is philosophical at best. You meanwhile, look to it as fact when its clearly not so. YOU are the one not testing your faith.

[tlongII]

I have read many, many more times pro-evolutionist material than creationist and NEVER go to creationist websites. Evolution can and has been disproven by science, I don't need creationists to back me up all I need is science. This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I am confident with the information I have attained, evolution is philosophical at best. You meanwhile, look to it as fact when its clearly not so. YOU are the one not testing your faith.

That's just a bunch of horseshit. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is indeed a fact.

[Blake]

I have read many, many more times pro-evolutionist material than creationist and NEVER go to creationist websites. Evolution can and has been disproven by science, I don't need creationists to back me up all I need is science. This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I am confident with the information I have attained, evolution is philosophical at best. You meanwhile, look to it as fact when its clearly not so. YOU are the one not testing your faith.


Evolution has not been disproven by science.

[z0sa]

Evolution has not been disproven by science.

I wonder how many really believe that as opposed to just being godhaters. I wonder how many pro-ID discoveries have been silenced or simply overlooked/forgotten because they did not go along with evolutionary doctrine. How many "transitional fossils" classified and dated by the Geological Column or indirect methods pertinent to it.

[tlongII]

I wonder how many really believe that as opposed to just being godhaters. I wonder how many pro-ID discoveries have been silenced or simply overlooked/forgotten because they did not go along with evolutionary doctrine. How many "transitional fossils" classified and dated by the Geological Column or indirect methods pertinent to it.

Dude, I got news for you. Every fossil you find is a transitional fossil. Evolution never stops.

[tlongII]

And WHY do you say that if you believe in evolution you're a God hater?

[Blake]

I wonder how many really believe that as opposed to just being godhaters. I wonder how many pro-ID discoveries have been silenced or simply overlooked/forgotten because they did not go along with evolutionary doctrine. How many "transitional fossils" classified and dated by the Geological Column or indirect methods pertinent to it.

I'm not a "god hater". Frankly, I believe in God.

If evolution has been absolutely disproven by science as you say, then what difference does a "pro-ID" discovery make?

[baseline bum]

And WHY do you say that if you believe in evolution you're a God hater?

Because he's a fucking moron.

[z0sa]

Because he's a fucking moron.

you're a whiny bitch who can't respect anyone with a different set of ideals. i'd tell you to go fuck your mother if you didn't have a bloody pussy.

[z0sa]

I'm not a "god hater". Frankly, I believe in God.

If evolution has been absolutely disproven by science as you say, then what difference does a "pro-ID" discovery make?

I didn't accuse you of being one, nor did I imply it. I used your statement to further my own idea instead of answering it.

About the discoveries, science would be much better off if they stopped acting like they already knew evolution exists - if only a small % of the evidence says otherwise, it is more than enough to abandon the theory altogether. I have found, in my mind, more than a small percentage of evidence discrediting the theory, and more than enough to abandon believing these indirect assumptions based on evolution's "truth."

Science cannot even tell you why birds flock together, much less how a language of information and coded like DNA naturally arose from matter and energy. Its funny that people look and see we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and think that somehow proves we evolved from them when ancient protozoans have a much larger genome than any complex creature. I saw a sign on 281 the other day that says our genome is 60% of a fruit fly. Will i be growing wings soon?

The common evolutionists answer is like Baseline_Dumb said, "You dont understand evolution." That is not the problem at all. The problem is, it just doesn't make sense and never did to me. You can't create the type of order in even a single bacterium from disorder and near nothingness - much less the human brain. Its not just unlikely, its statistically impossible. You keep your faith some miracle happened and life was formed, I'll keep searching for the real answers.

[Brian Adams]

That's just a bunch of horseshit. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is indeed a fact.

Link?

[Blake]

I didn't accuse you of being one, nor did I imply it. I used your statement to further my own idea instead of answering it.

well you were wondering how many really believe that evolution has not been disproven in science as opposed to just being god-haters. I'm just saying you can take me off of your list of possible god haters.


About the discoveries, science would be much better off if they stopped acting like they already knew evolution exists - if only a small % of the evidence says otherwise, it is more than enough to abandon the theory altogether. I have found, in my mind, more than a small percentage of evidence discrediting the theory, and more than enough to abandon believing these indirect assumptions based on evolution's "truth."

you know it's funny, I think the exact opposite.

I think a lot more could get accomplished if religious hacks would stop trying to shove the 7 day theory down our throats and if people like Behe would stop wasting court time with trying to sneak creationism into a public science classroom.


Science cannot even tell you why birds flock together, much less how a language of information and coded like DNA naturally arose from matter and energy. Its funny that people look and see we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and think that somehow proves we evolved from them when ancient protozoans have a much larger genome than any complex creature. I saw a sign on 281 the other day that says our genome is 60% of a fruit fly. Will i be growing wings soon?

I think it's funny that people like you see that we have 98% of the genome of a monkey and still say that science has disproven evolution.


The common evolutionists answer is like Baseline_Dumb said, "You dont understand evolution." That is not the problem at all. The problem is, it just doesn't make sense and never did to me. You can't create the type of order in even a single bacterium from disorder and near nothingness - much less the human brain. Its not just unlikely, its statistically impossible. You keep your faith some miracle happened and life was formed, I'll keep searching for the real answers.

How does abiogenesis somehow always get mixed up in evolution discussions?

[Blue Jew]

That's just a bunch of horseshit. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is indeed a fact.

You know how much time you could be saving all these evolution debates around the world? Don't keep this information to yourself please share it with us!

[tlongII]

You know how much time you could be saving all these evolution debates around the world? Don't keep this information to yourself please share it with us!

You can Google it yourself.

[baseline bum]

You don't understand shit, z0sa, as evidenced by your second law of thermodynamics bullshit. You're a retard.

[baseline bum]

you're a whiny bitch who can't respect anyone with a different set of ideals. i'd tell you to go fuck your mother if you didn't have a bloody pussy.

I'll pass on that, thank you. When people do shit like that babies like you pop out 9 months later.

[z0sa]

I'll pass on that, thank you. When people do shit like that babies like you pop out 9 months later.

you don't understand humor, but you are good at copying and pasting it.

[Re-Animator]

You can Google it yourself.


I can also Goggle BigFoot playing twister does that make it true?

[Big Worm]

EF8dTKdzhXw

[RandomGuy]

I have read many, many more times pro-evolutionist material than creationist and NEVER go to creationist websites. Evolution can and has been disproven by science, I don't need creationists to back me up all I need is science. This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I am confident with the information I have attained, evolution is philosophical at best. You meanwhile, look to it as fact when its clearly not so. YOU are the one not testing your faith.

Don't lie to me like that. It is highly disrespectful.

The fact that you took up the 2nd law of thermodynamics schtick with phrases that were specifically cherry-picked by creationist websites pretty obviously tells anyone with some common sense where you get your information.

The manner in which you criticize "evoloution", and the specific material you put forth both are fully consistant with someone who spent the majority, if not the entirety, of their time looking into this issue on creationist websites.

You have never taken a genetics course, you have never taken a biology course, and you have probably never taken more than a rudimentary chemistry course.

Anyone with a TRULY open mind might have seen through the "geological column is a lie" bit after I painstakingly laid out that it is more of a data summary than anything else.

Anyone with a TRULY open mind might have asked themselves the important critical thinking question, "well, the creationists said that it was based on circular logic, and this guy asked me what that was, so maybe I should find out for myself."

If you had really truly spent any time debunking with an open, honestly skeptical mind, the creationist claims by actually learning about the science underlying those claims, you would know exactly how the creationists are lying.

[RandomGuy]

The only people with any real motivation to paint the theory of evolution as somehow being "not science" or "philosophical" are young earth creationists.

Because only by proving somehow that hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers are somehow faking evidence, can creationists really try to drag the debate to someplace they think they can win.

They do this by either an unintentional faulty understanding of the science, or by deliberate distortions of what that science is or says.

That is what is taking place here, and exactly what z0sa and mouse are attempting to do.

[RandomGuy]

Let's begin our analysis to see what evidence we can find to support the assertion that z0sa doesn't really read websites about evolution, and instead spends his time reading through creationist websites to support his already existing belief system.

Here is where the language usage starts becoming rather important.


circular argument of evolution

Google the words: evolution circular logic (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolution+circular+logic&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=)

and you come up with things like this:

"Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology" on the Institute for Creation Research website (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=94)

or this:

The Circular Reasoning of Biological Evolution (http://www.sciencebehindthings.com/the-circular-reasoning-of-biological-evolution/)

This claim is debunked here, with appropriate links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html


The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.

The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.


I could easily go through the rest of z0sa's posts and quite clearly show that he uses rather easily debunked claims that are VERY commonly distributed ONLY on creationist websites.

If z0sa's claims of spending the majority of his time on "evolutionist" websites were really true he would have stumbled upon the "evolutionist" responses to the standard litany of creationist claims.

The fact that he uses the word "evolutionist" itself is the most damning indicator of where he spends his time reading.

There is really no such thing in science as an "evolutionist". There is no "evolutionology".

There are physics, biology, chemsitry, etc.

The ONLY people who use such language are creationists themselves in an attempt to portray a scientific theory as some sort of theologic belief system.

I will leave it at that. Anyone with some common sense can see through this particular seeming self-delusion.

As, I said before z0sa, you can lie to yourself, but you cannot lie to me. I know better. You have neither an open mind nor critical thinking skills.

You have demonstrated neither, and the more you post rather obviously false information and distortions about evolutionary theory, the less inclined I am to think that your distortions are inadvertant, and the more I am inclined to think they are deliberately misleading.

The problem with creationists is that they view themselves as fighting some great evil that is the cause of all manner of immorality. In this they allow themselves the moral leeway to deliberately lie and distort, in order to "save souls".

THAT is not science, that is lying.

[RandomGuy]

I have read many, many more times pro-evolutionist material than creationist and NEVER go to creationist websites.

If you are telling the truth then you must have stumbled across this gem:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

This is an index of EVERY creationist claim that has been made, and the ALL have been pretty easily shown as either false or a distortion of actual science.

If your statement were true, and you had the open mind you claim, then you would not so readily and unflinchingly regurgitate active distortions from ONLY one side of the debate.

Since you do, it is only logical to assume that you are deluding at least yourself if not actively lying to us about these claims of never reading creationist websites and truly considering both sides of the debate.

[baseline bum]

curb stomp

[mouse]

I am not sure how to describe what I just read from RandomLie. It was a combination of Mike Tyson,John Holmes, and Jim Rome all wrapped into one. For a brief moment there I was almost sexually stimulated. :tu

[Sec24Row7]

The only argument that a creationist really has at this point against evolution is saying "God made it look that way"

That is completely and utterly impossible to combat if you have faith in that sort of thing.

When you try to get into arguing logic with the science of evolution, the observed evidence crushes pure creationist dogma.

Creationists should stick to the realm that they have almost complete dominion over and that is faith. It is something that is admirable.

I never understood the huge outrage over the evolution theory anyway... Darwin didn't set out to disprove the existence of God... he was a religious guy who just reported the evidence he found.

The theory of evolution isn't inconsistent with the Creationist story... you are just going about it wrong. Instead of trying to fit creation into evolution... fit evolution into creation and there is no conflict.

[mouse]

The only argument that a creationist really has at this point against evolution is saying "God made it look that way"


Why can't a person not agree with evolution without being labeled a creationist? The same reason you can't talk about 9/11 without being called a left wing Conspiracy nut?

I have read both sides of the arguments and I have come to the conclusion man is to advanced and the human body is to complicated to say it came from some snail 900 Billion years ago.

[Sec24Row7]

Why can't a person not agree with evolution without being labeled a creationist? The same reason you can't talk about 9/11 without being called a left wing Conspiracy nut?

I have read both sides of the arguments and I have come to the conclusion man is to advanced and the human body is to complicated to say it came from some snail 900 Billion years ago.

Well if you don't believe in evolution and you aren't a creationist then what are you?

as to snails 900 billion years ago... I have no idea if they existed 885 billion years before the big bang... but you are probably right... if there were snails then... they probably didn't turn into people...

[baseline bum]

Well if you don't believe in evolution and you aren't a creationist then what are you?

as to snails 900 billion years ago... I have no idea if they existed 885 billion years before the big bang... but you are probably right... if there were snails then... they probably didn't turn into people...

I don't agree with that kind of one way or the other logic. It's the same thing the religious use on atheists when we say we don't have the answer to where we came from; when we acknowledge the big bang theory is still incomplete because our knowledge of physics still is.

[Sec24Row7]

I don't agree with that kind of one way or the other logic. It's the same thing the religious use on atheists when we say we don't have the answer to where we came from; when we acknowledge the big bang theory is still incomplete because our knowledge of physics still is.

I didn't say you had to be one way or the other... I just asked him if he wasn't one or the other... what was he?

Really that whole reply was kinda disjointed... I have no idea where you are coming from. Nothing in science is an absolute... especially things we know so little about... like the big bang/crunch whatever

[Phenomanul]

If you are telling the truth then you must have stumbled across this gem:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

This is an index of EVERY creationist claim that has been made, and the ALL have been pretty easily shown as either false or a distortion of actual science.

If your statement were true, and you had the open mind you claim, then you would not so readily and unflinchingly regurgitate active distortions from ONLY one side of the debate.

Since you do, it is only logical to assume that you are deluding at least yourself if not actively lying to us about these claims of never reading creationist websites and truly considering both sides of the debate.

I've tried to stay out of this particular thread... But to claim that science has crushingly rebuttaled every observation that doesn't support the evolutionary mindset is a lie.

You go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. If anything; your self delusion of having single-handedly put this controversy to rest is laughable. You've done that on three occasions in this thread alone. Wow.... :rolleyes

So go ahead and pick on those who might not be 'smart' enough to explain their dissention... question their motives... but don't ridicule them for questioning those things which are unanswerable through science. Further still, don't step out and try to make claims that science itself has yet to define and settle... otherwise your own motives, and your own atheistic agenda are the ones taking centerstage... on a side note, having the 'landslide' support of other spurstalk members who share a similar mindset is little to rave about. Mob-mentality carries very little weight on such matters.

Science cannot explain the unnatural... or the supernatural; particularly because the supernatural is not bound to the physical laws that define our universe. The very ones that Science attempts to explain. Hence to claim that Science can disprove GOD's existence is foolish at best. There is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.

And for the Umpteenth time... Science, by definition, cannot address the subject of origins (neither the cosmological event or the biological one is testable, repeatable, or for that matter even observable). Hence your quoted source (and the very name of the link itself):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
fails to adhere to the very principles Science is trying to uphold. It is one of many arrogant attempts to settle controversies that lie outside of the capabilities of Science. I mean, one of your quoted arguments against the use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as a deterrent to evolutionary principles was to claim that biological entities (such as seeds) frequently overcome entropic hurdles to produce order where none exists. Really? :shootme I'll let you sit on that a little longer, to see if you can figure out how ridiculous an argument that really is. In anycase, don't presume to lecture us about dogmas and then proceed to beget arguments from an agenda-filled cesspool of your own.

If you don't believe in GOD... fine. That is your perogative. Just don't ask me to buy the fact that you've reached that conclusion purely from the use of the scientific method.

Cue the predictable stonethrowing mob... :wakeup

[mouse]

Well if you don't believe in evolution and you aren't a creationist then what are you?
.

Just another American with my own thoughts and views on a subject . I know it must drive you crazy not being able to label me like some Nazi would during WWII

[mouse]

I have no idea if they existed 885 billion years before the big bang... ..

In order to have a big bang you need a big gun and someone to pull the trigger.

[Sec24Row7]

In order to have a big bang you need a big gun and someone to pull the trigger.

Before we could fly above the clouds we needed God to explain thunder.

[Blake]

Hence to claim that Science can disprove GOD's existence is foolish at best. There is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.

Did someone say that? I must have missed that......can you show me where that was posted?

All I recall is that z0sa said that science has disproven evolution.

[mouse]

I really don't have a problem with science, evolution,Darwin,Catholics,and law abiding overly educated tree huggers like RuffNReady.

I have a problem with anyone who lets a book or a person dictate to me what they think took place over 20,000 years ago, so you can imagine how I feel when you start talking about what you read that took place Millions of years ago. You make yourselves sound very foolish.

No man on earth can say for sure what was around 25,000 years ago they can only speculate with carbon and fossils and even then it's all theory.

If there was any hard proof topics like these could not exist.


That is why the Atheist love to use words like 450 Billion years ago, hell you figure if you pick a number large enough anyone could easily believe anything from monkeys that made beautiful cave drawings to Animals talking.

[johnsmith]

I have a problem with anyone who lets a book or a person dictate to me what they think took place over 20,000 years ago, so you can imagine how I feel when you start talking about what you read that took place Millions of years ago. You make yourselves sound very foolish.



:lmaoYeah, you only let the bible tell you what's up.

[Phenomanul]

Did someone say that? I must have missed that......can you show me where that was posted?

All I recall is that z0sa said that science has disproven evolution.

This controversy has been raging on for decades... it spilled over to the internet years ago, and more specifically onto this forum for as long as SpursTalk has been around... Regardless of the 'when,' hardline atheists must accept this principle as one of their core tenets or otherwise they would have no basis for their disbelief.

For them, everything we know: the universe, matter, order, and Life; all sprung out of nothingness... They keep trying to use Science as an ends to establishing that premise. Hence by that rationale, athiests must usher the belief that Science can prove or disprove GOD's existence.

[mouse]

:lmaoYeah, you only let the bible tell you what's up.


Show me the quote where I said I go to church and read the bible. All I have said is the Bible does have some history to it. And many scientist have agreed the big flood was around 6,000 years ago like the bible said it was.

If the world was to end today due to a huge explosion as sick as it may be to have to read your perverted diary 2,000 years from now to accurately pinpoint the time of the explosion, It doesn't mean the people reading your diary are huge johnsmith fans.

[MiamiHeat]

This controversy has been raging on for decades... it spilled over to the internet years ago, and more specifically onto this forum for as long as SpursTalk has been around... Regardless of the 'when,' hardline atheists must accept this principle as one of their core tenets or otherwise they would have no basis for their disbelief.

For them, everything we know: the universe, matter, order, and Life; all sprung out of nothingness... They keep trying to use Science as an ends to establishing that premise. Hence by that rationale, athiests must usher the belief that Science can prove or disprove GOD's existence.

so many things wrong with this poster...i'll just touch on 2 things

1) Science does not attempt to 'disprove' anything. Science always attempts to PROVE, not disprove. If I had a crazy idea about atoms having the power to turn into invisible hands and able to wash dishes, the burden is not on science to disprove my crazy idea. The burden is on me to PROVE my idea to the world.

Therefore, you have to PROVE your creationist crap. Your religion has to PROVE your 'crazy' (imo) idea about everything having been created by a magical being. If you can't prove it scientifically, then your idea is in the same category as me, the guy who thinks atoms can morph together into an invisible man who washes dishes in restaurants. It'll make $$ millions!

If that's the case, then stop bothering people with your crap. Until you can prove it, you will continue to be excluded in scientific discussion.

ok and now for #2

2) Scientists are not 'trying to establish a premise'... Science does not have bias. Scientific evidence has led us to establish this premise. It's the evidence leading us to the premise, not the human scientists forcing the issue to reach that premise as if it's some sort of ideological war.

If the scientific evidence leads us to a supernatural deity, then scientists will work hard to 'establish that premise'. If scientific evidence leads us to God, then we will believe in God.

The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific evidence leading to a supernatural being and THAT is the reason the scientists all over the world do not believe in God and are working to 'establish a premise'

Blame the evidence, not the scientists. This isn't some conspiracy. If there was evidence to God, we would have known it by now. A scientist is noble in his approach to the world - he seeks only the truth

[mouse]

so many things wrong with this poster...i'll just touch on 2 things

1) Science does not attempt to 'disprove' anything. Science always attempts to PROVE, not disprove. If I had a crazy idea about atoms having the power to turn into invisible hands and able to wash dishes, the burden is not on science to disprove my crazy idea. The burden is on me to PROVE my idea to the world.

Therefore, you have to PROVE your creationist crap. Your religion has to PROVE your 'crazy' (imo) idea about everything having been created by a magical being. If you can't prove it scientifically, then your idea is in the same category as me, the guy who thinks atoms can morph together into an invisible man who washes dishes in restaurants. It'll make $$ millions!

If that's the case, then stop bothering people with your crap. Until you can prove it, you will continue to be excluded in scientific discussion.

ok and now for #2

2) Scientists are not 'trying to establish a premise'... Science does not have bias. Scientific evidence has led us to establish this premise. It's the evidence leading us to the premise, not the human scientists forcing the issue to reach that premise as if it's some sort of ideological war.

If the scientific evidence leads us to a supernatural deity, then scientists will work hard to 'establish that premise'. If scientific evidence leads us to God, then we will believe in God.

The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific evidence leading to a supernatural being and THAT is the reason the scientists all over the world do not believe in God and are working to 'establish a premise'

Blame the evidence, not the scientists. This isn't some conspiracy. If there was evidence to God, we would have known it by now. A scientist is noble in his approach to the world - he seeks only the truth

Science doesn't need to disprove anything they have you!

And why do you call creationist crap? Can't you just disagree without displaying your hate? And who made you the authority on who believes in God? Why can't someone believe in a creator without being a religious person? You just want to pool everyone together so you can look so smart. Well if you was half a smart as you try to look in this forum you would agree with many points others make, but you never do because your stubborn, and you hate your life so God must not exist.

You never answered my question on if you have ever had a girlfriend.

[baseline bum]

This controversy has been raging on for decades... it spilled over to the internet years ago, and more specifically onto this forum for as long as SpursTalk has been around... Regardless of the 'when,' hardline atheists must accept this principle as one of their core tenets or otherwise they would have no basis for their disbelief.

For them, everything we know: the universe, matter, order, and Life; all sprung out of nothingness... They keep trying to use Science as an ends to establishing that premise. Hence by that rationale, athiests must usher the belief that Science can prove or disprove GOD's existence.

This is ridiculous, Pheomanul. The alleged supernatural cannot be tested by science, because it is by definition outside of the natural world. The hardcore atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural because it's conjecture and tradition.

[Phenomanul]

Oh great.... MiamiHeat, the worst Spurstalk poster ever... "You must accept my ideas or else you are stupid, I always win..."

Some part of me believes mouse and MiamiHeat are one and the same... as mouse really loves to stir the pot. :stirpot: It wouldn't surprise me to say the least... His troll fame is second to none...

Anyways...


so many things wrong with this poster...i'll just touch on 2 things

1) Science does not attempt to 'disprove' anything. Science always attempts to PROVE, not disprove. If I had a crazy idea about atoms having the power to turn into invisible hands and able to wash dishes, the burden is not on science to disprove my crazy idea. The burden is on me to PROVE my idea to the world.

Therefore, you have to PROVE your creationist crap. Your religion has to PROVE your 'crazy' (imo) idea about everything having been created by a magical being. If you can't prove it scientifically, then your idea is in the same category as me, the guy who thinks atoms can morph together into an invisible man who washes dishes in restaurants. It'll make $$ millions!

If that's the case, then stop bothering people with your crap. Until you can prove it, you will continue to be excluded in scientific discussion.

FAIL: I didn't claim that my belief in GOD's existence was based on scientific principles... Belief in GOD occurs on grounds of faith... and I am fine accepting His existence on those terms. To each his own. But your camp can't claim to hold the keys for universal knowledge (when that certainly is not the case), and then presume to dictate what the rules are, as far as acceptable beliefs go. A little more on that below...

As for your mock "atom man belief"... I don't care what you believe in... But if that belief can tranform your life, can unify you with others in spirit, and can bring peace to your life, then you got yourself a belief that is greater than the sum of its parts... And while many 'religions' can claim to satisfy these requisites, only a relationship with the GOD that created the universe can fill that void. So before you go complaining about all this "religious" talk it was you who spilled it over into the ideological sector.



2) Scientists are not 'trying to establish a premise'... Science does not have bias. Scientific evidence has led us to establish this premise. It's the evidence leading us to the premise, not the human scientists forcing the issue to reach that premise as if it's some sort of ideological war.

You're right... science does not have bias... but the people using it for their atheistic means certainly do. Otherwise why even involve Science in the GOD-controversy?



If the scientific evidence leads us to a supernatural deity, then scientists will work hard to 'establish that premise'.

It's like attempting to suggest that an ameoba is capable of defining and understanding the human experience; his consciousness, his essence - an impossible task. Likewise, science is wholly incapable of defining or even measuring the supernatural. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the scientific tools are capable of that...



If scientific evidence leads us to God, then we will believe in God.

Not necessarily... You will just find some other excuse not to believe in Him. Afterall, didn't you claim that everyone was in fact really worshiping the sun god?

"Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD..."



The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific evidence leading to a supernatural being and THAT is the reason the scientists all over the world do not believe in God and are working to 'establish a premise'

Blame the evidence, not the scientists. This isn't some conspiracy. If there was evidence to God, we would have known it by now.

No, but we do know that biological complexity does not arise from chaos. A notion important enough to question the prevailing movement that suggests creation occured without the need for a Creator.

RG's entire schitck on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was one big rant that never addressed the actual controversy. For all the equations and math that his source 'derived' on the subject it failed to deliver the 'smoking gun' blow to the dissention...

For one, the order conveyed by biological molecules is hundreds, to thousands, of times more entropic than that of most other molecules. So while other highly ordered molecules are in fact produced through natural processes, biological molecules cannot be produced without biotic precursors... That 'natural' process simply doesn't exist (and in my belief never did). Hence experiments that have attempted to find this process (such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have only shown that human interaction is needed for them to succeed*. Hardly an argument in favor of abiogenesis.

RG's article also brought up the amazing structure of snowflakes as proof that order is produced from chaos... while complex, their fractal-like creation is the result of a simple phase change, impacted by the Brownian motion of vapor molecules condensing on the surface of the flake. Nevertheless, a snowflake's chemical structure does not contain any information that would drive the flake to produce any order of its own. Once they land, and under the melting influence of the sun or pressure, the crystals amalgamate to produce a solid piece of ice, or water... at you guessed it... a lower entropic state.

It also mentioned the formation of crystals that are produced when aqueous solutions are boiled. Sure, such crystals are highly ordered, but they too are the product of a simple change in state. The resulting crystalline structure, however, is formed at the lowest energy state available. In fact, the ionic energies which chemically fuel that physical transformation are but a mere wisp when compared to the energy stored in complex biological molecules. Like snowflakes, the information contained on these batch-created crystals doesn't convey any other directive. Say... like the surface of a CD, DVD or Bluray whose designed crystalline groves allow for the transmission of a higher-order 'message'.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "knowledge is power", or "information is is the key"? It applies to molecules as well. Their structures convey messages, perform functions and represent a purpose that is greater than their empirical breakdown alone. The prime example of this concept is 'embodied' by molecular strands of DNA and RNA. The codified information contained in strands of DNA and RNA is far more significant than the actual makeup of the atoms that form the genetic molecules to begin with. What's amazing is that this premise still stands despite the fact that the complexity of said structures is nothing to scoff at. Unfortunately, the day that science embraces this importance of this concept will likely never arrive.

BTW, If the author of that article had no agenda of his own, he would have also thrown the existence of polymers or alloys into the fray... but then he would have found himself questioning why the majority of those molecules aren't naturally occurring.

In anycase, the article then proceeded to name some biological examples of small-scale structures producing massive order (such as seeds and enzymes)... :shootme Apparently the author did not understand that the crux of the argument has always been abiogenesis; i.e. said biological examples could only exist after the event in question took place. Those examples, hence, cannot be used to make the argument; it would be akin to using a word to define itself. I mean he's using the simple fact that enzymes exist to suggest that the origin of their existence cannot be questioned... :dizzy Come again? Biological enzymes are created by DNA/RNA and sometimes even prionic molecules through the use of transcription/translation enzymes... The genetic code is always present. Without that code no driver exists for those molecules to be embodied with a purpose. Contrary to popular belief the basic Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of the code; it only addresses the mechanisms by which the code is changed and the phenotypical ramifications of those changes, as imparted on a population.

No credible, naturalistic scenario exists, however, where the code develops itself from scratch. It would be like wishing for letters to assemble themselves to form coherent phrases, sentences, and paragraphs to produce a book, complete with a plot, and a flowing story!!!! Now consider the fact that the genomes from even the smallest of biological organisms are comprised by millions of codified base pairs... how long would the first viable strand of genetic code have taken to form under such a purposeless process? Further still, what would have kept that first strand from immediately breaking down in the absence of stabilization enzymes??? Despite this severe flaw in logic, I'm supposed to blindly accept the fact that such a natural process occured sometime in our past, without evidence of its existence? What's worse is that the Evolutionary theory doesn't answer that origins riddle, even though some of its adherents certainly think it does...

On a side note, seeds are designed to produce order, and enzymes are designed to overcome entropic odds. I don't expect a Ford Truck to be assembled out of it's own accord if I acquired all the parts (steel, rubber, plastic etc...) and stored them in a cave (no matter if 4 billion years were allowed to pass by) If, however, I sent them to a truck assembly line no one would be surprised by the finished product... That's because automotive plants are designed to produce vehicles.

Anyways MH, for all of your supposed handle on the subject... your stated admission of hatred towards Christians precludes you from throwing the 'bias card' out there.



A scientist is noble in his approach to the world - he seeks only the truth

True, unfortunately there are many misguided scientists who are consumed by the GOD-question. And like I've stated repeatedly, the origins question cannot be settled by science.

[Phenomanul]

This is ridiculous, Pheomanul. The alleged supernatural cannot be tested by science, because it is by definition outside of the natural world. The hardcore atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural because it's conjecture and tradition.

So your own disbelief is based on what grounds???

Here's what I wrote above:



For them [hardline athiests], everything we know: the universe, matter, order, and Life; all sprung out of nothingness... They keep trying to use Science as an ends to establishing that premise.

Swap out the word "establishing" with "justifying" and it's not like I've stated an incoherency....

[El Jefe]

This an argument that will go on forever for one simple reason. One of the most basic tenets of any religion is to have faith. One of the definitions of faith is to believe in something in the absence of proof. That's the ballgame right there. If you are truly religious a truly profess a faith in God, no amount of evidence to the contrary (or lack of evidence for) is going to sway you away from that. If your faith is strong enough, and for some it is, then you will actively try to find holes in the evidence that goes against what you believe.

For some of us, we have decided that the whole faith thing is overrated, and we base our outlook on the universe on evidence. What can we prove to be true? For us, the answers aren't in religion, they are in science. We wish to understand how the natural world works.

There is no smoking gun piece of evidence for evolution. There never will be. There are just a lot of pieces of evidence. When you put all of the pieces of evidence together, evolution is our best model for how life has formed over time. Darwin was not 100% right. Evolution is not 100% right. But Darwin was right about a few things, and he got us started on the right path. As we've learned things over the years, we've changed the model to incorporate those findings. When DNA was discovered and genetics took off, evolution was even more solidified. Evolution only becomes more accurate with time. Science is about learning, about discovering new things and about finding the truth of how the world works.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, I can understand that. And though religion isn't my cup of tea, I'll respect your right to worship however you choose and believe in whatever you choose. To argue that the evidence is against evolution however is a waste of time. It really just isn't. If you don't want to believe in it, that's ok. Just don't try to have creationism taught in science class.

As for not believing in evolution or creationism..... that's just being indifferent. Which is ok too I suppose. If you have an alternate theory or belief, I'm willing to listen, but I can't imagine what it is.

[Richard Cranium]

I was born and I'm here and that is all that matters to me. I'll be gone soon enough so who gives a rat's ass.

[Alex Jones]

Darwin was right about a few things, and he got us started on the right path. .

Speak for yourself.

[El Jefe]

Speak for yourself.

I didn't think I was speaking for anybody else....

Do you have any specific objections to Darwin's work?

[Alex Jones]

I didn't think I was speaking for anybody else....

Do you have any specific objections to Darwin's work?


I don't but this guy may,

http://www.landofabsurdity.com/hof/ewing.jpg

[El Jefe]

I don't but this guy may,

http://www.landofabsurdity.com/hof/ewing.jpg

Why would Patrick Ewing have a problem with natural selection? He's probably a fairly good example. Some combination of his genes, or possibly even a mutation led to him being 7 feet tall. 7 feet tall at a time when basketball players could make millions of dollars and be all sorts of famous. This has led to him having a very successful life, instead of trying to scratch out a meager existence. He has passed on some of these successful genes to his son Patrick Ewing Jr. (Who isn't quite the ball player his father is, but is still much taller than the average human male)

This is an example of passing positive random traits on to your offspring. The positive traits make it much more likely the Ewings will survive, and pass on their positive traits to more offspring.

It's a very simplistic view of natural selection, but it gets the rough gist of it across. Now, why would Mr. Ewing have a problem with that?

[RandomGuy]

I've tried to stay out of this particular thread... But to claim that science has crushingly rebuttaled every observation that doesn't support the evolutionary mindset is a lie.

Hmm. Perhaps you are right.

I should rephrase:
Scientists have rebutted rather successfully every creationist critique that I am aware of.

Perhaps there are one or two that I am not aware of, or that are obscure enough to not make it onto that rather comprehensive list.


You go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. If anything; your self delusion of having single-handedly put this controversy to rest is laughable. You've done that on three occasions in this thread alone. Wow.... :rolleyes

The only claim I have made is that evolutionary theory better explains observed phenomenon than any other competing theory.
While you might find this statement arrogant or "patting yourself on the back", I simply stated my own observation.


So go ahead and pick on those who might not be 'smart' enough to explain their dissention... question their motives... but don't ridicule them for questioning those things which are unanswerable through science. Further still, don't step out and try to make claims that science itself has yet to define and settle... otherwise your own motives, and your own atheistic agenda are the ones taking centerstage... on a side note, having the 'landslide' support of other spurstalk members who share a similar mindset is little to rave about. Mob-mentality carries very little weight on such matters.

If you were reasonably sure someone was lying to you, would you question their motives?

As for my "atheistic agenda":

Um, No. You know exactly shit about my religious beliefs, other than I don't buy biblical literalism and the young earth creationism that comes with it.

For all of your statements about my seeming self-righteousness, your own hypocrisy comes through rather crystal clear. You think you are better than the "atheists" and anybody who doesn't believe 100% identically to you is an atheist. GMAFB.


Science cannot explain the unnatural... or the supernatural; particularly because the supernatural is not bound to the physical laws that define our universe. The very ones that Science attempts to explain. Hence to claim that Science can disprove GOD's existence is foolish at best. There is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.

Yet another strawman. I never claimed God doesn't exist, or that evolution somehow disproves God. In fact, I went quite out of my way to fully make that distinction.


And for the Umpteenth time... Science, by definition, cannot address the subject of origins (neither the cosmological event or the biological one is testable, repeatable, or for that matter even observable).

Are we ever going to be able to see the beginning of life again? No.

But evolutionary theory does predict that we will eventually find that simple organic molecules can self-replicate.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html

We take steps towards figuring out how exactly such molecules might work on a fairly regular basis.

Sooner or later, we will figure out a pretty close model as to how it is a fairly reasonable event to get such replication out of non-life under the right circumstances.

When we do the last real creationist "but it is too complex" will be whittled away. Irreducible complexity will forever be laid to rest as a failed idea.


Hence your quoted source (and the very name of the link itself):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
fails to adhere to the very principles Science is trying to uphold. It is one of many arrogant attempts to settle controversies that lie outside of the capabilities of Science.

Another distortion of what the website, or for that matter, what science itself says about it. There is a vast gap between explaining the how life began and explaining why.



I mean, one of your quoted arguments against the use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as a deterrent to evolutionary principles was to claim that biological entities (such as seeds) frequently overcome entropic hurdles to produce order where none exists. Really? :shootme I'll let you sit on that a little longer, to see if you can figure out how ridiculous an argument that really is. In anycase, don't presume to lecture us about dogmas and then proceed to beget arguments from an agenda-filled cesspool of your own.

Why wait, if you are going to say something about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics too, go ahead, because I would be willing to bet that if you do, you will end up using the same tired old distortions of actual science that have been dragged up countless times in debates such as this.

Since I am pretty sure that I know what it is and says, I don't see how you have a point, but maybe I am truly missing something. Illuminate me.


If you don't believe in GOD... fine. That is your perogative. Just don't ask me to buy the fact that you've reached that conclusion purely from the use of the scientific method.

Once again:

Please don't assume you know what someone believes before you ask them.

For the record: I do believe in God. You will pardon me if my concept of what that is/should be is different than yours. If you keep saying I have some "atheist agenda", you will be making yourself into a liar AND a hypocrite.

Not that I can/want to stop you from being such, it is your perogative after all.

[man on wire]

Fuck you.

Once again:

Fuck you, you self-righteous prick.
.


Anyone notice how certain posters don't have the patients to have an adult debate?

[RandomGuy]

On a side note, seeds are designed to produce order, and enzymes are designed to overcome entropic odds. I don't expect a Ford Truck to be assembled out of it's own accord if I acquired all the parts (steel, rubber, plastic etc...) and stored them in a cave (no matter if 4 billion years were allowed to pass by) If, however, I sent them to a truck assembly line no one would be surprised by the finished product... That's because automotive plants are designed to produce vehicles. [truncatd for brevity]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html

Once again, you do make mention of that research, and rightly so. The self-reproducing enzymes here still need short segments of RNA.

I see what you are saying here. You are also still distorting what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is/says to make your case.

You do it in a more educated and erudite manner, but still do the same thing.

Before research like the link I quoted, people like you were saying that it was impossible for simple molecules to reproduce by themselves, and used that as the basis for your arguments. Lo and behold, they find organic, self-replicating molecules, and that schtick goes out the window, so you fall back another step.

As we learn more about the basics of organic chemistry, evolutionary theory says we will eventually find self-replicating molecules of a VERY basic type.

What will happen to your "it is still too impossible" critique when we do?

When we find how rather simple organic molecules can self-replicate, with or without RNA, what will you say then?

If we simulate the conditions present on the earth billions of year ago, and find that if you mix a common array of inorganic chemicals together, and find that not only is is possible, but it is PROBABLE that you end up getting self replicating molecules, and that those molecules CAN make more complicated self-replicating molecules,

What will your argument against evolutionary theory be then?

Ultimately, if God created the universe in such a way that life from inorganic chemicals was not only possible, but an eventual certainty, that makes evolution merely the tool that was used. We will ultimately have explained the how, which is all science really attempts to do.

God's existence or not doesn't depend on which tool he chooses. Anybody who says otherwise is blowing smoke.

[tlongII]

Anyone notice how certain posters don't have the patients to have an adult debate?

Anyone notice that spelling is not one of mouse's strong suits?

[RandomGuy]

Anyone notice how certain posters don't have the patients to have an adult debate?

I have plenty of patience, but when someone decides to make their case by assuming what I believe in order to talk down to me, as if that makes their case, I will NOT put up with that shit.

Call me what you will, but don't talk about what I believe or don't believe if you don't have clue one as to what those beliefs are.

[RandomGuy]

Claiming that "evolutionists" claim that the pickup parts self-assembled into a truck "by chance" is a distortion that is used rather cleverly and commonly.

A better analogy for the Ford truck is:

If you have a planet with iron in the crust and some gaseous nitrogen atmosphere, you will eventually get wind that will pile some iron-rich ore into a pile. If the universe was put together in such a way that iron ore, and the other basic materials involved in a Ford truck would natually form into truck parts, the analogy might begin hold some water.

BUT

It doesn't. Ultimately the metaphor is itself a lie about what evolutionary science says. A clever turn of phrase to be sure, but it is still inaccurate at least, disingenuous at worst.

[Re-Animator]

You people that are into Evolution seem to have a very strong passion and a relentless determination to prove your points.
I can only wonder what drives a person to do that on a daily bsisis?

[PandaSpur.]

Anyone notice that spelling is not one of mouse's strong suits?


Spelling smack? that is so 1999! come on TLongII raise the bar!

[tlongII]

Spelling smack? that is so 1999! come on TLongII raise the bar!

Spoken like someone that can't spell...

[Phenomanul]

I have plenty of patience, but when someone decides to make their case by assuming what I believe in order to talk down to me, as if that makes their case, I will NOT put up with that shit.

Call me what you will, but don't talk about what I believe or don't believe if you don't have clue one as to what those beliefs are.

Sorry if my first post was condescending...

Seriously though, your treatment of z0sa left much to be desired for someone who was merely trying to settle the issues.

You didn't just state your opinions... you stated them as facts - condescendingly so.

[JoeChalupa]

Anyone notice that spelling is not one of mouse's strong suits?

Yeah, years ago. But he is still evolving.

[Phenomanul]

Claiming that "evolutionists" claim that the pickup parts self-assembled into a truck "by chance" is a distortion that is used rather cleverly and commonly.

A better analogy for the Ford truck is:

If you have a planet with iron in the crust and some gaseous nitrogen atmosphere, you will eventually get wind that will pile some iron-rich ore into a pile. If the universe was put together in such a way that iron ore, and the other basic materials involved in a Ford truck would natually form into truck parts, the analogy might begin hold some water.

BUT

It doesn't. Ultimately the metaphor is itself a lie about what evolutionary science says. A clever turn of phrase to be sure, but it is still inaccurate at least, disingenuous at worst.


Disingenuous??? Even the genomes of the most simple retro-viruses are 100's of times more complex than a pick-up truck... Size isn't everything. You couldn't even get the earth to naturally produce the alloys, or the plastics, or anything remotely resembling an insulated wire, much less a working battery. How then would an entity such as a truck be created from scratch unless it were designed??? Every part serves an individual purpose, and they all serve a larger one.

Like most naysayers you are failing to see that the complexity we speak of lies beyond the empirical breakdown of the molecules in question, it lies beyond their high-energy state arrangements, it lies in the information contained by the molecules themselves - in their biological directives.

IMO the codified messages that form the basis of life have no natural origin...

Oh and if you had actually bothered to read to what I wrote you would have noticed I clearly defined what evolutionary theory can and cannot address.

I stated that the evolutionary theory is inherently silent on the origins issue. It only addresses the dynamics of genotypical change without stating how genetic material first came into being. So how could the metaphor be a lie about evolutionary science??? I'm talking origins here. Again, the issue has always been abiogenesis. Which I'm fairly certain remains unproven.

[Blake]

You people that are into Evolution seem to have a very strong passion and a relentless determination to prove your points.
I can only wonder what drives a person to do that on a daily bsisis?

I can only wonder why a person decides that the it's the other side that is the one that seem to have the strong passion and the relentless determination to prove points.

see: Behe

[Blake]

Disingenuous??? Even the genomes of the most simple retro-viruses are 100's of times more complex than a pick-up truck... Size isn't everything. You couldn't even get the earth to naturally produce the alloys, or the plastics, or anything remotely resembling an insulated wire, much less a working battery. How then would an entity such as a truck be created from scratch unless it were designed??? Every part serves an individual purpose, and they all serve a larger one.

Like most naysayers you are failing to see that the complexity we speak of lies beyond the empirical breakdown of the molecules in question, it lies beyond their high-energy state arrangements, it lies in the information contained by the molecules themselves - in their biological directives.

IMO the codified messages that form the basis of life have no natural origin...

cmon.......just say the words "irreducible complexity" already


Oh and if you had actually bothered to read to what I wrote you would have noticed I clearly defined what evolutionary theory can and cannot address.

I stated that the evolutionary theory is inherently silent on the origins issue. It only addresses the dynamics of genotypical change without stating how genetic material first came into being. So how could the metaphor be a lie about evolutionary science??? I'm talking origins here. Again, the issue has always been abiogenesis. Which I'm fairly certain remains unproven.

how exactly is the issue abiogenesis? It's only an issue for the 7 day creationists.

Evolution describes how the 2009 Ford F350 evolved from a horse and buggy........it does not try to prove that the it sprung spontaneously from nothingness.

[Phenomanul]

Ultimately, if God created the universe in such a way that life from inorganic chemicals was not only possible, but an eventual certainty, that makes evolution merely the tool that was used. We will ultimately have explained the how, which is all science really attempts to do.

See.... this is where you have lept from science to faith. Eventual certainty???

I guess you keep leaning towards your infinite multiverse model...



God's existence or not doesn't depend on which tool he chooses. Anybody who says otherwise is blowing smoke.

Let me see if I'm catching your drift...

What you're saying is that you do believe in GOD, but you don't necessarily buy into the notion that He was directly involved with the creation of Life... the moment 'Life' sprung into existence... GOD simply created the Universe... but knew all along that His universal model would produce a biological entity, some point down the road... indirectly?

Is that your GOD theory in a nutshell?

[Blake]

See.... this is where you have lept from science to faith. Eventual certainty???

I guess you keep leaning towards your infinite multiverse model...



Let me see if I'm catching your drift...

What you're saying is that you do believe in GOD, but you don't necessarily buy into the notion that He was directly involved with the creation of Life... the moment 'Life' sprung into existence... GOD simply created the Universe... but knew all along that His universal model would produce a biological entity, some point down the road... indirectly?

Is that your GOD theory in a nutshell?

what exactly is your drift?

Is it not possible for God to use evolution to create man?

[Phenomanul]

how exactly is the issue abiogenesis? It's only an issue for the 7 day creationists.

Evolution describes how the 2009 Ford F350 evolved from a horse and buggy........it does not try to prove that the it sprung spontaneously from nothingness.


Ding, ding, ding!!!!

You just answered your own question...

My qualm is not with micro-evolution... it is with people's mistaken inference that evolution addresses the origins issue when it clearly does not... And that they would then, incorrectly use said theory to justify their ideological beliefs. Evolution cannot be used as an argument in favor of atheism...

What exactly is your quarrel?

[Phenomanul]

what exactly is your drift?

Is it not possible for God to use evolution to create man?

It is possible. Yes.

But again, I wasn't debating that. I'm debating whether or not evolution can even take place if He doesn't directly create Life to begin with.

[Blake]

Ding, ding, ding!!!!

You just answered your own question...

My qualm is not with micro-evolution... it is with people's mistaken inference that evolution addresses the origins issue when it clearly does not... And that they would then, incorrectly use said theory to justify their ideological beliefs. Evolution cannot be used as an argument in favor of atheism...

What exactly is your quarrel?

funny, it's usually the creationists that argue against evolution to justify their ideological beliefs. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone on here arguing that evolution = atheism.

My quarrel is when people think that if evolution is going to be taught in science class that creation should as well.

[Blake]

It is possible. Yes.

But again, I wasn't debating that. I'm debating whether or not evolution can even take place if He doesn't directly create Life to begin with.

that's a philosophical debate at this point and I don't think anyone wants to argue for or against that but you.......unless I missed someone's post somewhere.

[Earth]

My quarrel is when people think that if evolution is going to be taught in science class that creation should as well.


Yes we wouldn't want both sides of the issues. How is the weather in China?

[Phenomanul]

funny, it's usually the creationists that argue against evolution to justify their ideological beliefs. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone on here arguing that evolution = atheism.

My quarrel is when people think that if evolution is going to be taught in science class that creation should as well.

I don't believe creationism should be taught in the classrooms... I've been on this forum for over 4 years and have yet to support such a proposition.

Students however, should not be duped into believing that evolution addresses anything beyond the scope of the theory. Such agendas have no place in a public classroom.

[Earth]

Your right the schools need to stick with books of actual events.

http://www.educationmax.com/image.php?productid=25667

http://www.abebooks.com/images/RareBooks/avid-collector/Jun06/alephBetBooksStoryOfLittleBlackSambo.jpg

http://www.sd68.k12.il.us/schools/orchard/lmc/Book%20Covers/wizard%20of%20oz.jpg

http://blog.syracuse.com/shelflife/2007/07/tintin.jpg

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/09/11/283930/LUMBfrontcoversmall.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Anyone notice how certain posters don't have the patients to have an adult debate?

It all depends on how much sleep I got the night before. :ihit

After a good night's rest, I realized I was a bit too cranky. Apologies to all.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry if my first post was condescending...

Seriously though, your treatment of z0sa left much to be desired for someone who was merely trying to settle the issues.

You didn't just state your opinions... you stated them as facts - condescendingly so.

Hmmm example?

I am sure I can be condescending at times, but generally try to avoid that.

BTW, sorry about going off. I took it a step too far, and took out some of the angrier words. It was still a bit irritating, but I overreacted a bit. Once again: apolgoies.

[RandomGuy]

I don't believe creationism should be taught in the classrooms... I've been on this forum for over 4 years and have yet to support such a proposition.

Students however, should not be duped into believing that evolution addresses anything beyond the scope of the theory. Such agendas have no place in a public classroom.

That's just it. I would be willing to bet a good deal of money that virtually never really happens.

[RandomGuy]

No, but we do know that biological complexity does not arise from chaos.

Actually the experiments with the man-made enzymes, and other similar experiments show that it does.

If some change, even if it adds to the genome, provides an adaptive advantage, then that change and the organism that embodies that change become dominant fairly quickly.

[RandomGuy]

Disingenuous??? Even the genomes of the most simple retro-viruses are 100's of times more complex than a pick-up truck... Size isn't everything. You couldn't even get the earth to naturally produce the alloys, or the plastics, or anything remotely resembling an insulated wire, much less a working battery. How then would an entity such as a truck be created from scratch unless it were designed??? Every part serves an individual purpose, and they all serve a larger one.

Like most naysayers you are failing to see that the complexity we speak of lies beyond the empirical breakdown of the molecules in question, it lies beyond their high-energy state arrangements, it lies in the information contained by the molecules themselves - in their biological directives.

IMO the codified messages that form the basis of life have no natural origin...

Oh and if you had actually bothered to read to what I wrote you would have noticed I clearly defined what evolutionary theory can and cannot address.

I stated that the evolutionary theory is inherently silent on the origins issue. It only addresses the dynamics of genotypical change without stating how genetic material first came into being. So how could the metaphor be a lie about evolutionary science??? I'm talking origins here. Again, the issue has always been abiogenesis. Which I'm fairly certain remains unproven.

1) Viruses came about after single celled organisms, or quite possibly were simply around in some very basic, simple form when single cells arose, and became more complex as time went by along with those single celled organisms.

We're not talking about throwing together a whole cell from parts, instantly from scratch.

We are talking about fairly simple molecules, such as the enzymes from the article I mentioned.

Neither the enzymes themselves, the proteins they are composed of, or the RNA they use to replicate themselves with are functioning cells.

The whole experiment showed how little information is required to produce something capable of self replication.

I will ask again:

What happens when we find that very simple molecules, on the order of 10 base pairs or so can reproduce?

Organic molecules that consist of nothing more complex than a chain of hydrocarbons capable of reproducing themselves, however inefficiently, from more basic components would certainly fit the bill for what got the whole thing kicking.

Their existence is certainly suggested by the theory of evolution, and if the theory's prediction about this pans out, then where is your last citadel of denial, abiogenesis?

Will you then fall back to the keep of "but, but, but, that is too complex to be simple chance?", despite what we found?

[MiamiHeat]

RandomGuy,

you are debating EVOLUTION!! on a forum against some religious loony phenomanul.

there are over 10000000 papers published on evolution. if he has some sort of ground breaking evidence to shatter evolution, he could publish it and change almost every scientific mind in the world.

he's just arguing mumbo jumbo with you. creationism has no proof, nothing to stand on.

[JoeChalupa]

Here we go again. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

See.... this is where you have lept from science to faith. Eventual certainty???

I guess you keep leaning towards your infinite multiverse model...



Let me see if I'm catching your drift...

What you're saying is that you do believe in GOD, but you don't necessarily buy into the notion that He was directly involved with the creation of Life... the moment 'Life' sprung into existence... GOD simply created the Universe... but knew all along that His universal model would produce a biological entity, some point down the road... indirectly?

Is that your GOD theory in a nutshell?

I don't even think he had a hand in the abiogenesis that you seem to be enamored of.

I think that the composition of chemicals and the way that elements interact leads to organic chemistry.

Why does carbon have X number of chemical bonding points? Why does water have the chemical properties it does? Set up the rules in such a way, and simply let the enormousness of the universe and the passage of immense amounts of time take care of the rest.

If you sat around and drew poker hands long enough the odds of you getting a royal flush are certain.

We have had this argument before, and even you acknowledge that, however reluctantly.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy,

you are debating EVOLUTION!! on a forum against some religious loony phenomanul.

there are over 10000000 papers published on evolution. if he has some sort of ground breaking evidence to shatter evolution, he could publish it and change almost every scientific mind in the world.

he's just arguing mumbo jumbo with you.

Ultimately, he is arguing/presenting a distortion and misinterpretation of what evolution says and the science supports.

'sokay. Phenom is actually fairly intelligent, so it could be worse. At least he isn't a 9-11 "truther". :lol

[RandomGuy]

Yes we wouldn't want both sides of the issues. How is the weather in China?

Except if you want creationism, you have to pick a belief system/religion to talk about it, don't you?

Do we teach that the universe winked into being instantly, and the earth was shaped over 7 days approximately 10,000 years ago,

or

Do we teach that midgard was formed from the blood and bones of a dead giant?

or

Do we teach that the great bird brought forth the world whole and complete about 20,000 years ago?

If you believe the earth is only about 10-20 thousand years old, the great bird version of creationism fits just as well.

[Blake]

Yes we wouldn't want both sides of the issues. How is the weather in China?

So if we don't agree with your ignorant ass, we must live in China.

Creationism is not a science. I would tell you to look it up, but I know you won't.
I would also post a clear cut definition from an unbiased source for you, but I know that wouldn't read it or understand that either.
I would also post the court case that saw creationism get turned down as a science, but you would probably dig into your 9/11 backpack and find a conspiracy there.

But just keep on, mouse. It's fun.

[MiamiHeat]

creationism is RELIGION. nothing more. not ONE shred of testable scientific evidence. it's all just 'because I believe it'

religious nonsense belongs in personal homes and church, not in science class.

evolution being a 'theory' doesn't mean it's on the same level as creationism. that's a disgusting lack of understand of what the scientific method IS.

for anything to reach scientific theory status, you have to have actual scientific evidence, and enough of it to verify your hypothesis. if the facts are pointing to something else and clearly do not verify your hypothesis, your hypothesis is WRONG and must be modified and sometimes changed completely. creationism cannot do this. creationism cannot even reach 'theory' status because it has -zero- data, scientific evidence.

creationism should be compared to the homeless guy on the corner who believes he was kidnapped by aliens. that's creationism's level, creationism's equal. just people 'believing' with no proof.

anyone comparing evolution to creationism shows their lack of even a proper high school education.

[Phenomanul]

I don't even think he had a hand in the abiogenesis that you seem to be enamored of.

I think that the composition of chemicals and the way that elements interact leads to organic chemistry.

Why does carbon have X number of chemical bonding points? Why does water have the chemical properties it does? Set up the rules in such a way, and simply let the enormousness of the universe and the passage of immense amounts of time take care of the rest.

If you sat around and drew poker hands long enough the odds of you getting a royal flush are certain.

We have had this argument before, and even you acknowledge that, however reluctantly.

While the possibilities for such a scenario are not impossible for GOD why would He wish to create something only to end up having to wait billions of years for it? Did he speed up time??? Sat around waiting for the perfect storm to produce life? Did He then preside over the process while waiting another billion years to see the arrival of Humans...??? It would be pretty surprising to consider that GOD would choose such a tortuous path considering He is endowed with the limitless power to create from scratch...

I believe humans were the pinnacle of GOD's Creation... because He created them in His image. To say He was not directly involved in man's creation would counter that notion.

On a side note, would you then classify yourself as a strict Deist... Like Einstein classified himself, a couple of years before passing away???

[Phenomanul]

blah, blah, blah..... :vomit:

[tlongII]

I don't think phenomanul is arguing against evolution although I could be wrong. I think he actually believes in evolution. He's just saying evolution doesn't explain the actual genesis of life. Now if he's saying that that fact debunks evolution I would have to say he's crazy.

[Blake]

While the possibilities for such a scenario are not impossible for GOD why would He wish to create something only to end up having to wait billions of years for it? Did he speed up time??? Sat around waiting for the perfect storm to produce life? Did He then preside over the process while waiting another billion years to see the arrival of Humans...??? It would be pretty surprising to consider that GOD would choose such a tortuous path considering He is endowed with the limitless power to create from scratch...

Everything you are asking is philosophical and pretty much all based on Biblical assumptions. If you want to get into such a debate, start a new thread and I'll jump in.

I'd reply back with something like "if God is omnipotent, then why did it take Him 7 days and why did he have to rest on the 7th day?"

[RandomGuy]

While the possibilities for such a scenario are not impossible for GOD why would He wish to create something only to end up having to wait billions of years for it? Did he speed up time??? Sat around waiting for the perfect storm to produce life? Did He then preside over the process while waiting another billion years to see the arrival of Humans...??? It would be pretty surprising to consider that GOD would choose such a tortuous path considering He is endowed with the limitless power to create from scratch...

I believe humans were the pinnacle of GOD's Creation... because He created them in His image. To say He was not directly involved in man's creation would counter that notion.

On a side note, would you then classify yourself as a strict Deist... Like Einstein classified himself, a couple of years before passing away???

If god truly is infinite, why would he care about billions of years?

You also seem to be assuming that life, and the development of sapience are unique to the Earth.

If self-replicating organic chemistry is really as possible as evolutionary theory would predict, then it is very likely that we are not the only life in the universe. Astronomy has begun to find large, earth-like planets, and it isn't as if water and carbon are particularly rare elements.

If creating beings "in his image" simply means that God created bits of matter that are capable of sentience, then yes, God created us in his image.

But to assign God some rather primitive, ape-like form such as how we are shaped, seems... odd to me. I would imagine God to be waaaay beyond that, if even bothering to be corporeal at all.

[RandomGuy]

Everything you are asking is philosophical and pretty much all based on Biblical assumptions. If you want to get into such a debate, start a new thread and I'll jump in.

I'd reply back with something like "if God is omnipotent, then why did it take Him 7 days and why did he have to rest on the 7th day?"

Indeed.

Our understanding of the universe has moved a *bit* beyond that of bronze-age man, or for that matter, midieval man.

Why should our concept of God not do so as well?

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of ageless wisdom in the Bible, such as that of outlining ethical behavior and how to be a good person, but I really don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is really all that useful, not the least of which are the rather disowned passages about how/when to stone people for various things.

If one really wants to be literal about the thing, then it is rather hypocritical to say that stoning people to death for transgressions is not what God wants but rather this other stuff. Either you take the whole thing pretty literally, or you are picking and choosing what to believe out of it anyways.

[Phenomanul]

1) Viruses came about after single celled organisms, or quite possibly were simply around in some very basic, simple form when single cells arose, and became more complex as time went by along with those single celled organisms.

We're not talking about throwing together a whole cell from parts, instantly from scratch.

We are talking about fairly simple molecules, such as the enzymes from the article I mentioned.

Neither the enzymes themselves, the proteins they are composed of, or the RNA they use to replicate themselves with are functioning cells.

The whole experiment showed how little information is required to produce something capable of self replication.

I will ask again:

What happens when we find that very simple molecules, on the order of 10 base pairs or so can reproduce?

Organic molecules that consist of nothing more complex than a chain of hydrocarbons capable of reproducing themselves, however inefficiently, from more basic components would certainly fit the bill for what got the whole thing kicking.

Their existence is certainly suggested by the theory of evolution, and if the theory's prediction about this pans out, then where is your last citadel of denial, abiogenesis?

Will you then fall back to the keep of "but, but, but, that is too complex to be simple chance?", despite what we found?


Since I must leave for work, I cannot sit around and debate all day....




"So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes forever,"

"Joyce's chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes..."

"This is a nice example of the robustness of the RNA world hypothesis," he said. However, " it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."

First off, the assumptions people are drawing from this experiment, are not all supported by the data. Man has to interfere at critical junctions of such experiments to drive them to their apparent success. Due to our interference, those experiments don't really substatiate the claims that the processes in question occur naturally. That is not how the scientific method works. Especially if you're in the business of trying to prove Darwinian Molecular Evolution.

When prions were discovered years ago, people thought they had found the key to life's early precursors... it was later determined that prions, like viruses could embed themselves in genetic code, lay dormant for years and manifest themselves at any given moment. Only difference was that they were protein based 'viruses'. Prions hence (much like the enzymes in your example which were hacked out of pre-existing code), are merely the result of deleterious breakdowns to some original code, not precursors to the code itself.

Anyways I have to take off...

Peace.

[Blake]

Since I must leave for work, I cannot sit around and debate all day....



First off, the assumptions people are drawing from this experiment, are not all supported by the data. Man has to interfere at critical junctions of such experiments to drive them to their apparent success. Due to our interference, those experiments don't really substatiate the claims that the processes in question occur naturally. That is not how the scientific method works. Especially if you're in the business of trying to prove Darwinian Molecular Evolution.

When prions were discovered years ago, people thought they had found the key to life's early precursors... it was later determined that prions, like viruses could embed themselves in genetic code, lay dormant for years and manifest themselves at any given moment. Only difference were that they were protein based 'viruses'. Prions hence (much like the enzymes in your example which were hacked out of pre-existing code), are merely the result of deleterious breakdowns to some original code, not precursors to the code itself.

Anyways I have to take off...

Peace.

so what it is exactly that you are trying to debate?

[Phenomanul]

Actually the experiments with the man-made enzymes, and other similar experiments show that it does.

If some change, even if it adds to the genome, provides an adaptive advantage, then that change and the organism that embodies that change become dominant fairly quickly.

Key-word.

Remember, I used to design and produce polymers at my previous employment. Just because a polymer-root is common (monomers such as methanol, formaldehyde, or propylene) does not mean that the polymer could ever be produced by some natural process.

As simple as the polymer may be, the process to manufacture their production was designed, is controlled and ultimately belongs to man - not nature.

[MiamiHeat]

Even if evolution was wrong, that does not mean the answer is God by default.

Creationism has to be proven true, not just win by default because we were wrong about x.

That's not how science works. You would do well going back to high school

[RandomGuy]

Since I must leave for work, I cannot sit around and debate all day....

First off, the assumptions people are drawing from this experiment, are not all supported by the data. Man has to interfere at critical junctions of such experiments to drive them to their apparent success. Due to our interference, those experiments don't really substatiate the claims that the processes in question occur naturally. That is not how the scientific method works. Especially if you're in the business of trying to prove Darwinian Molecular Evolution.

When prions were discovered years ago, people thought they had found the key to life's early precursors... it was later determined that prions, like viruses could embed themselves in genetic code, lay dormant for years and manifest themselves at any given moment. Only difference were that they were protein based 'viruses'. Prions hence (much like the enzymes in your example which were hacked out of pre-existing code), are merely the result of deleterious breakdowns to some original code, not precursors to the code itself.

Anyways I have to take off...

Peace.

... and for when you come back:

Indeed, the article does rightly point out that it doesn't say anything about how RNA came about in the first place.

BUT

RNA are not whole cells are they?

Where would your argument go if we were to show how RNA could come about under certain conditions likely found on earth billions of years ago?

RNA/DNA are essentially complex hydrocarbons, with some oxygen and nitrogen thrown in for good measure. (http://library.thinkquest.org/27819/ch6_3.shtml)

Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine, and Urasil (codons) consist of 10 to 13-atom molecules of very common elements, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Carbon.

Both DNA and RNA are held together by phosphates.

It takes as few as three segments of RNA to code for some amino acids, and no more than 18.

Further, 5 of the 20 known proteins common in life on Earth can be built using just two of the four codons. Most can be coded for with sections that consist primarily of two codons with just ONE other thrown in.

This stuff isn't billions, or millions of codons long, just 18 at the longest.

You can't just wave your hands and say it is so impossible that only direct divine intervention, i.e. "God did it" simply because haven't figured out just how it happened yet.

What happens to your argument when we figure out exactly how it happened?

[MiamiHeat]

i would advise any other religious loony to read up on allopatric speciation. it will help give you the foundation for further reading into the subject.

there seems to be large amounts of people in this thread who weren't paying attention in science class.

anyway, as i said, even if evolution was wrong, it doesn't prove creationism by default.

trying to DISPROVE evolution as a way to gain favor for creationism is laughable. that's not how science works.

[MiamiHeat]

Looking at the thread title again, I would also like to add that Darwin is not the final authority on evolution. He was wrong but was correct in certain areas. The theory has received contribution and work from many different people over time.

Over time, the theory has gained everyone's support because the data pointed to this direction. Evolution theory in it's current form is supported by much evidence.

[Sec24Row7]

So basically if my quick run-thru read is correct Phenamanul doesn't have any problem with evolution so far as it makes no claims on the origins of life.

I really don't have any problem with that.

No one has explained to me to my satisfaction how life began.

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

No one has explained to me to my satisfaction how life began.

And no one ever will.

[Sec24Row7]

And no one ever will.

Never say never...

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

Never say never...

My point was that for some there is NO explanation that will suit them. Take MiamiHeat for example. He is convinced there is no God even though he cannot prove it and thus he questions those who do believe and calls them stupid and ridiculous when he has no proof himself. You all are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.

[Blake]

No one has explained to me to my satisfaction how life began.

I don't know if you know or not, but science has pretty much shown that even the oldest of humans don't live much beyond the age of 100...

since logic then would dictate that nobody here was around to see life begin, scientists have been doing lots and lots of research, trying to figure out the building blocks of life and how we came to be....

honestly, don't feel bad that no one has explained to your satisfaction how life began because really, no one really knows. really.

[Blake]

My point was that for some there is NO explanation that will suit them. Take MiamiHeat for example. He is convinced there is no God even though he cannot prove it and thus he questions those who do believe and calls them stupid and ridiculous when he has no proof himself. You all are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.

and then there are some who think we must be in China if we feel that creation has no place in the science classroom..

go figure.

[MiamiHeat]

My point was that for some there is NO explanation that will suit them. Take MiamiHeat for example. He is convinced there is no God even though he cannot prove it and thus he questions those who do believe and calls them stupid and ridiculous when he has no proof himself. You all are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.

Excuse me, but I have tons of proof that religion is man made and therefore, by default, that god is man made. therefore, creationism is bullshit as well.

If there is a god somewhere, he has nothing to do with our religions.

[Alex Jones]

RandomGuy,

you are debating some religious loony phenomanul.

Again with the name calling.



he's just arguing mumbo jumbo with you. creationism Any point we try to make is useless? thanks for ruining a great debate.

[Sec24Row7]

I don't know if you know or not, but science has pretty much shown that even the oldest of humans don't live much beyond the age of 100...

since logic then would dictate that nobody here was around to see life begin, scientists have been doing lots and lots of research, trying to figure out the building blocks of life and how we came to be....

honestly, don't feel bad that no one has explained to your satisfaction how life began because really, no one really knows. really.

Umm... yeah... that was kinda my point. We are going to eventually figure it out though.

[Alex Jones]

Excuse me, but creationism is bullshit .


Is there a forum where we can have an adult debate?

[Blake]

Is there a forum where we can have an adult debate?

coming from you, that's hilarious.

[Blake]

Umm... yeah... that was kinda my point. We are going to eventually figure it out though.

don't know how anyone would get that was your point through "no one has explained how life began to your satisfaction."

I still don't even know who the "we" is that you are referring to......

[The Power Hour.]

Is there a forum where we can have an adult debate?

There is no such thing with an evolutionists they can't seem to communicate with insults and name calling that is why I don't debate in this topic anymore.

mix that with a mountain dew induced 15 year old that just saw ZeItgeist and your asking for trouble. Google Evolutionist and bad tempers and you gate pages of examples.


EF8dTKdzhXw&eurl

[Blake]

There is no such thing with an evolutionists they can't seem to communicate with insults and name calling that is why I don't debate in this topic anymore.



there is no such thing with you when you resort to signing in and out under different screen names so that you can have conversations with yourself and even pat yourself on the back.

[Sec24Row7]

don't know how anyone would get that was your point through "no one has explained how life began to your satisfaction."

I still don't even know who the "we" is that you are referring to......

Me and Fred...

WTF is wrong with you... who the hell else but "humanity" would I mean by we?

[Alex Jones]

coming from you, that's hilarious.

Feel free to quote me.

And I will quote you, MiamiHeat, and others lets see who's lying.

[Blake]

Me and Fred...

WTF is wrong with you... who the hell else but "humanity" would I mean by we?

there is also the "we" as in when "we" die and face the "creator".

You still have yet to say which side of the fence you are on.

WTF is wrong with you.

[Blake]

Feel free to quote me.

And I will quote you, MiamiHeat, and others lets see who's lying.

quote you about what?

I'm not calling you a liar.

[Professor Lilloman]

there is no such thing with you when you resort to signing in and out under different screen names so that you can have conversations with yourself and even pat yourself on the back.


So instead of addressing the topic you try divert the conversation to screen names? Who is to say your not MiamiHeat? And Phenomanul is not Kori?

Does it really matter who is behind the screen name when your getting your ass kicked in a debate?
A heads up: You may be taken serious if you try and stay on topic

[Hitler]

You still have yet to say which side of the fence you are on.

WTF is wrong with you.

I like your style would you like a job with the SS?

[Blake]

So instead of addressing the topic you try divert the conversation to screen names? Who is to say your not MiamiHeat? And Phenomanul is not Kori?

Does it really matter who is behind the screen name when your getting your ass kicked in a debate?
A heads up: You may be taken serious if you try and stay on topic

Yeah, either that or when you end up getting butthurt, you just switch names and the pain apparently goes away.

Just asking, why the hell are you asking for an adult forum when you pull childish stunts in every thread.

and if you want me to post your non-adult trash talk, lemme know.

[Blake]

I like your style would you like a job with the SS?

well that was quick. Thanks for saving me the trouble of searching.

[911]

You still have yet to say which side of the fence you are on.

WTF is wrong with you.


Show me your papers!! are you a Jew or not?

57OpP0Xbq_E

[Duncan]

Yeah, either that or when you end up getting butthurt, you just switch names and the pain apparently goes away.
.


Are you saying all those screen names are the same person? And you do have proof? since you preach that proof is what your all about in this topic.

[911]

Yeah, either that or when you end up getting butthurt, .you pull childish stunts in every thread.
.


Show a quote were someone got butthurt? Not sure the meaning is it a Gay annology?

[mouse]

I think he is saying all the screen names he hates in this topic are me. ok Blake time to put your balls where your mouth is. (won't be the first time)

We will ask Kori if all the screen names you accuse me of are really me, if just one of them is not you get banned for two weeks is it a deal?

[The Power Hour.]

Accept the challenge Blake :tu

[Blake]

I think he is saying all the screen names he hates in this topic are me. ok Blake time to put your balls where your mouth is. (won't be the first time)

We will ask Kori if all the screen names you accuse me of are really me, if just one of them is not you get banned for two weeks is it a deal?

can we take this to the adult forum?

you win. I have no proof. None of the names like blake(.) miami heat(.) basline bum(.) or pandaspur(.) alex jones 911 or any other name that post all in a 5 minute time frame are you.

[mouse]

I take it you don't go to many ST GTGs. BigZax,Joe Chalupa,JT, Spurswoman and myself talk about names we created and the fools like yourself that take the bait.

I must say without gullible people like yourself it would make the art of trolling very dull. Your a good participant, then again you still think man came from the monkey so your not to hard to fool.

[JoeChalupa]

Huh, different screen names? Don't forget that I'm every troll.

[Blue Jew]

I love when posters think I am mouse :lmao

[johnsmith]

I take it you don't go to many ST GTGs. BigZax,Joe Chalupa,JT, Spurswoman and myself talk about names we created and the fools like yourself that take the bait.

:lmao That sounds like an awesome time.

[man on wire]

Does it really matter what screen name we all use? I want someone to prove to me I evolved from an ape, is that to much to ask?

[Blake]

I take it you don't go to many ST GTGs.

I don't go to any ST GTGs.


BigZax,Joe Chalupa,JT, Spurswoman and myself talk about names we created and the fools like yourself that take the bait.

So you admit to busting out with a bunch of fake names.

I take it back that you win. You self owned. I win.


I must say without gullible people like yourself it would make the art of trolling very dull. Your a good participant, then again you still think man came from the monkey so your not to hard to fool.

I am definitely gullible. If someone told me that I was arguing with a monkey right now, I would believe them.

[Alex Jones]

:lmao That sounds like an awesome time.

Maybe one day you can join us! :tu

[johnsmith]

Mouse: "Do you remember the time that I created that fake name on the internet"?

Joe: "That was awesome".

BigZax: "Yeah".

They all high five.



Seriously, you guys fucking rock.

[RandomGuy]

I take it you don't go to many ST GTGs. BigZax,Joe Chalupa,JT, Spurswoman and myself talk about names we created and the fools like yourself that take the bait.

I must say without gullible people like yourself it would make the art of trolling very dull. Your a good participant, then again you still think man came from the monkey so your not to hard to fool.

Heh, figuring out which ones are yours doesn't take much most of the time.

Secondly, man didn't come from monkeys. You keep making that mistake.

Do your research.

[DizzG.]

I don't go to any ST GTGs.

.

Thank GOD!!

oops! I mean in your case, Thank ..............





http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/26/darwin.gif

[GoldToe]

Huh, different screen names? Don't forget that I'm every troll.

You tell them joe.

[RandomGuy]

Does it really matter what screen name we all use? I want someone to prove to me I evolved from an ape, is that to much to ask?

You didn't evolve from an ape, mouse.

Do your research.

Like I said, not hard to pick out 95% of your trolls. :lol

[mouse]

I don't go to any ST GTGs.

I was wondering why we have such a fun time.






So you admit to busting out with a bunch of fake names.

Not all the time sometimes we talk about how many goats we get your moving up the list! :tu


I take it back that you win. You self owned. I win.

Congrats! I am so proud of you, where will you put your cyber trophy?




I am definitely gullible. If someone told me that I was arguing with a monkey right now, I would believe them.

Would you treat them as family?

[mouse]

Mouse: "Do you remember the time that I created that fake name on the internet"?


The MiamiHeat one, or the NorCal510 one?

[JoeChalupa]

You didn't evolve from an ape, mouse.

Do your research.

Like I said, not hard to pick out 95% of your trolls. :lol

You have the same gift as BigZak. :lmao He thinks every troll is me.

[mouse]

You didn't evolve from an ape, mouse.

Do your research.


I did.

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/keith-flint-totally-looks-like-harcore-monkey.jpg

[Blake]

I was wondering why we have such a fun time.

Here I thought it was because you were all huddled together in the GTG basement making up trolls.

I'll be sure to stay away so you guys can keep having such a fun time.


Not all the time sometimes we talk about how many goats we get your moving up the list! :tu

I am so proud of me, where can I put my cyber trophy?


Would you treat them as family?

Why would I treat you and your trolls as family?

[Sec24Row7]

I think I've made it pretty clear in this thread if you read all my posts where I stand on the issue...

[Blake]

I think I've made it pretty clear in this thread if you read all my posts where I stand on the issue...



02-26-2009, 04:24 PM

Replies: 411 Happy Birthday Charles: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

Views: 2,523 Posted By Sec24Row7

Re: Happy Birthday Charles: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

Before we could fly above the clouds we needed God to explain thunder.


your last post in the thread before today was last Thursday. I forgot what you had posted 5 days ago.

WTF is wrong with you.

[tlongII]

If the troll can't spell it is most likely mouse.

[z0sa]

curb stomp

You are the biggest bitch on this board. Total pussylips between your legs. Also, it absolutely hilarious how face value you take the other's arguments on this board for evolution. You've brought up multiple poster's answers with nothing on your own part. You are worse than the stupidest blind follower - you follow a follower of a follower of a follower instead of attempting to create your own opinion.

Nothing against homosexuality, If you're truly a man, you've no doubt experimented with men and liked it because you felt accepted and "part of the gang."

[PandaSpur.]

If the troll can't spell it is most likely mouse.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fWLtJmEhLG0/SWy4IyP3_yI/AAAAAAAADVs/uUcTL59byyc/s400/captain+obvious.jpg

[z0sa]

Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations. Your findings mean absolutely nothing to me, because I've seen them all before - and accusing me of lying about having seen them will drop you to a new level of childish debate.
Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it. You are lying about having debunked my statements on it, flat out. You are lying which makes your non-pasted answers - and your "good intentions for science'' attitude against me - very questionable.

No one cares to lie to you about their intentions, fool. I could give a rat's ass if we came from monkeys or not - completely don't give a shit, which is funny because you try to discredit me over and over and call me a liar. Its obvious you're afraid of my words and that's why you discredit my person.

Truth is, you've been the more underhanded debater here by far, insulting me initially and being condescending from second 1. Instead of debating, you regurgitated statement after statement demanding "anti-proof", even after being rebuffed multiple times. And that is why I will cease to discuss these issues with you - you've taken offense to another's opinion, the worst thing you could do in a debate. Your insults on my person are not lightly taken considering they are unprovoked, and if you had SAID some of these things in reality, you could be accused of slander or defamation. Since this is a forum, you're bullshit stands. But you've debunked very little, if any, of the statements I made, which is why saying you have is a total lie.

[MiamiHeat]

When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.

I believe God put those fairies there. Gravity is just a theory.

[z0sa]

When I drop a ball, invisible fairies grab it and pull it to the ground.

I believe God put those fairies there. Gravity is just a theory.

Are these the same invisible fairies God had create the first cell so evolution could happen? Perhaps these same fairies also created DNA's code so life could actually be 'evolved,' though its clear information exclusively comes from a mind.

How about every second the earth rotates around the sun a small percentage in either direction from being too hot/cold for life, you blame the invisible fairies too, you jackass.

[Blake]

You are the biggest bitch on this board. Total pussylips between your legs. Also, it absolutely hilarious how face value you take the other's arguments on this board for evolution. You've brought up multiple poster's answers with nothing on your own part. You are worse than the stupidest blind follower - you follow a follower of a follower of a follower instead of attempting to create your own opinion.

Nothing against homosexuality, If you're truly a man, you've no doubt experimented with men and liked it because you felt accepted and "part of the gang."


Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations. Your findings mean absolutely nothing to me, because I've seen them all before - and accusing me of lying about having seen them will drop you to a new level of childish debate.
Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it. You are lying about having debunked my statements on it, flat out. You are lying which makes your non-pasted answers - and your "good intentions for science'' attitude against me - very questionable.

No one cares to lie to you about their intentions, fool. I could give a rat's ass if we came from monkeys or not - completely don't give a shit, which is funny because you try to discredit me over and over and call me a liar. Its obvious you're afraid of my words and that's why you discredit my person.

Truth is, you've been the more underhanded debater here by far, insulting me initially and being condescending from second 1. Instead of debating, you regurgitated statement after statement demanding "anti-proof", even after being rebuffed multiple times. And that is why I will cease to discuss these issues with you - you've taken offense to another's opinion, the worst thing you could do in a debate. Your insults on my person are not lightly taken considering they are unprovoked, and if you had SAID some of these things in reality, you could be accused of slander or defamation. Since this is a forum, you're bullshit stands. But you've debunked very little, if any, of the statements I made, which is why saying you have is a total lie.

you are an idiot.

[Blake]

Are these the same invisible fairies God had create the first cell so evolution could happen? Perhaps these same fairies also created DNA's code so life could actually be 'evolved,' though its clear information exclusively comes from a mind.

How about every second the earth rotates around the sun a small percentage in either direction from being too hot/cold for life, you blame the invisible fairies too, you jackass.


meltdowns.......

:corn:

[z0sa]

you are an idiot.

He told me I knew nothing then called me a retard - without putting forth any of his own arguments or knowledge on the subject at hand. That's what you call 'provoking' someone. I reacted like anyone would and defended myself.

why don't you go learn to read, read my previous sentences, then realize why I called baseline_scrub a pussy in the first place.

[z0sa]

meltdowns.......

:corn:

fuck christ. fuck all religions, fuck every one of them.

doesnt mean we evolved.

[El Jefe]

I still don't understand what is so controversial about evolution. There is overwhelming evidence that the process occurred and continues even today. It makes sense on a logical level, that which is adapted best to it's environment survives and passes along that adaptation. It makes no claims, none what so ever, about the origin of life, it is simply the process by which simple life has come to resemble the complex organisms seen in the world today.

I'm not sure that anyone is even arguing the basics of evolution in here. It seems like the origin of life and the starting point of evolution is the main concern, and that is certainly much more open to debate. But evolution itself? I just don't see where there is a conflict.

I'm actually not even sure there is really an argument going on so much as there are many trolls in here trying to stir the pot. That's another phenomenon I don't understand, but maybe that deserves it's own thread.

[pickle girl]

z0sa Blake and MiamiHeat are going to insult you 24/7 why waste your time on them? Even if your right they will insult you. Remember the Atheist don't have to be right they just have to get you to debate with them and with insults you will look like your wrong.

[MiamiHeat]

be quiet pickle girl or i'll create a time warp dimension to stick my hand through your monitor and slap that stupid pickle off your face

[baseline bum]

He told me I knew nothing then called me a retard - without putting forth any of his own arguments or knowledge on the subject at hand. That's what you call 'provoking' someone. I reacted like anyone would and defended myself.

why don't you go learn to read, read my previous sentences, then realize why I called baseline_scrub a pussy in the first place.

You are a fucking retard. You have no idea what entropy is, and then make longwinded posts about it. The existence of pieces of shit like you is proof that either there is no god or that he's a horrible underachiever.



It is very realistic to believe entropy was not helpful in the laying out of those specific genetic sequences, which chemists apparently have nothing to say about.


This line of yours shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of entropy. You confused entropy with energy, which tells anyone with any sense whatsoever that you haven't the slightest clue when you start talking about the second law of thermodynamics. Leave the argument to people like Phenomenaul who are on your side and actually know something.

[Re-Animator]

be quiet pickle girl or i'll create a time warp dimension to stick my hand through your monitor and slap that stupid pickle off your face

This has to be the MiamiHeat troll I am actually laughing! :lol

[baseline bum]

So your own disbelief is based on what grounds???


My disbelief in the existence of a god is based on a disbelief of the supernatural, since there's no evidence supporting it and since I've never felt this faith that the religious seem to possess. There's not the same burden of proof on the skeptic as there is the one on the person making lavish claims, unless you want to call the existence of Russell's Teapot a 50/50 proposition. In philosophy you can correctly come to any conclusion with a valid argument when you have even one unsound premise to base it on, and the existence of god has never been shown in any satisfying way to establish it as a likely sound assumption.

Apart from that, many ideas in the bible sound ridiculous to me. We're created in god's image? That comes off as amazingly arrogant, and it seems much more likely that arrogant man formed god in his own image; how many times have you seen psychos like David Koresh come convince people they're really god?

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations.

Provide one concrete example of the linked website taking a quote from a creationist out of context and/or distorting the underlying meaning of what that creationist claim represents.

I found the representations of creationist claims to be fairly represented.

[RandomGuy]

You are the biggest bitch on this board. Total pussylips between your legs. Also, it absolutely hilarious how face value you take the other's arguments on this board for evolution. You've brought up multiple poster's answers with nothing on your own part. You are worse than the stupidest blind follower - you follow a follower of a follower of a follower instead of attempting to create your own opinion.

Nothing against homosexuality, If you're truly a man, you've no doubt experimented with men and liked it because you felt accepted and "part of the gang."

I see you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations.

Provide one concrete example of circular logic used to support anything on that website.

[RandomGuy]

Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it. You are lying about having debunked my statements on it, flat out. You are lying which makes your non-pasted answers - and your "good intentions for science'' attitude against me - very questionable.

The Geological Column is indeed used to generally date fossils, and indeed was likely used to estimate dates of fossils in the OP.

It is not based on the underlying assumption that evolution is a fact however, and that has been demostrated.

It is based on two assumptions:
1) That older layers are generally buried underneath newer layers.
2) Repeated radiometric dating of rocks and minerals within the layers has provided a fairly accurate method of assigning ages to the different layers.

If your statement about the randomness of the deposits of the layers were accurate, why is it that simpler organisms almost invariably are deeper than more complex organisms?

If the deposits were laid down randomly, how could chance explain why they would be deposited in that manner?

[RandomGuy]

Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it.

Evolutionist website that lists a universally acceptedly accurate means as to how they made the geolgoical column and why they go off of it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html


The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

I would further note that the authors specifically cited both the claim, and the "evolutionist" material that they based their statements on.


Claim CD103:
The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.

Source:
Huse, Scott, M., 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 14.

Response:
The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.


The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.
Links:
Ritland, Richard, 1982. Historical development of the current understanding of the geologic column: part II. Origins 9(1): 28-50. http://www.grisda.org/origins/09028.htm

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G2
References:
Ritland, R. 1982. (see above).
Further Reading:
Schneer, Cecil J., n.d. William "Strata" Smith on the web. http://www.unh.edu/esci/wmsmith.html

Young, Davis A., 1988. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Artisan Sales.

Further I would note that you yourself repeated, almost verbatim, the claim given in the quote above.

Please tell me how that creationist claim was either distorted or taken out of context.

[RandomGuy]

Truth is, you've been the more underhanded debater here by far, insulting me initially and being condescending from second 1. Instead of debating, you regurgitated statement after statement demanding "anti-proof", even after being rebuffed multiple times.

1) I have gone out of my way in the majority of my posts to avoid anything approaching condescension.

2) I have asked very basic, logical questions, and avoided as much as humanly possible, any loaded emotional language.

3) I do think you are straight up lying about the amount of time you have spent on a balanced view of this topic, and given your statements about "evolutionists" and the amount of creationist dogma you have attempted to pass off here, I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption.

Prove me wrong.

What do you find accurate about the theory of evolution? What do they get right?

4) Give me one concrete example of me demanding "anti-proof".

You make a lot of statements but can't back anything up.

I make my living evaluating other peoples' statement of facts, and whether those statements are supported by available evidence. You fail rather spectacularly in that regard, in my professional opinion.

[RandomGuy]

fuck christ. fuck all religions, fuck every one of them.

doesnt mean we evolved.

The ultimate existance of God is indeed irrelevant to whether or not we evolved.

Assuming God doesn't exist, and that we didn't evolve, how DID we get here?

Do tell.