"Persecuting Christians again!"......in Texas...

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by searchbliss

Regardless of how anyone feels...keep in mind...IT IS TEXAS.
After all, Texas is it's own planet.

That'll get Cricket chirping!

[searchbliss]

Originally Posted by Muddy

That'll get Cricket chirping!

No...Cricket loves me...right?
Well just incase, here's my disclaimer:

The comments, opinions, and content provided by the lender SearchBliss to third parties, companies, corporations, and or individuals including Cricket are as is. SearchBliss is NOT responsible for damages or loss as a result of third parties utilizing and/or reading the following post on the v7n forums. SearchBliss is NOT responsible for the any and all replies provided by third party v7n users that do not contain SearchBliss copyright notices. By reading this post, you agree to the above terms and conditions.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by searchbliss

(...) By reading this post, you agree to the above terms and conditions.

I love this, I may have to steal it from you.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by searchbliss

Regardless of how anyone feels...keep in mind...IT IS TEXAS.
After all, Texas is it's own planet.

[Atom]

It seems that there are great hopes for the role of synapse proteins. They are likened to computers.

[Atom]

Speculative, of course, but an interesting notion none the less.

[Atom]

One suggestion is, the bigger the synapse the more molecularly complex, and we all know that more complex computers are smarter. However, and as I pointed out, the likening of these proteins to tiny computers is speculation. The synapse does seem to me to be a logical area to pursue in the quest for an answer to this question though. There is much research to be done.

[Muddy]

Ferre, I don't believe it was G10's intent to put those examples forward as legitimate. He was putting them forward as examples of how unfair comparisons can be made both ways. They require no defending because as you say, they're ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying that all creationists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics. Just as ridiculous as saying that all atheists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Ferre, I don't believe it was G10's intent to put those examples forward as legitimate. He was putting them forward as examples of how unfair comparisons can be made both ways. They require no defending because as you say, they're ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying that all creationists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics. Just as ridiculous as saying that all atheists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics.

What I am saying is that the arguments used by creationists are not only OLD but also debunked too many times in the past decades to be used without either exposing serious ignorance about the subject which is debated, or deliberate deceit.

One would as least expect participants in a discussion to google their arguments to see if they have been used before, and with what result.

My beef is not as much with the ideology, each his own I'd say, my beef is with intellectual dishonesty that keeps popping up in those discussions.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

What I am saying is that the arguments used by creationists are not only OLD but also debunked too many times in the past decades to be used without either exposing serious ignorance about the subject which is debated, or deliberate deceit.

One would as least expect participants in a discussion to google their arguments to see if they have been used before, and with what result.

My beef is not as much with the ideology, each his own I'd say, my beef is with intellectual dishonesty that keeps popping up in those discussions.

Ok, lets try it this way..

I respect your knowledge and am always willing to listen and I would like to think that you also respect mine also.

Do I think that you know a lot about physics and the science behind all this? Yes, you know a lot more than I.

Do I think that you know as much about the bible and biblical teachings? No, I do not feel you know as much.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Ferre, I don't believe it was G10's intent to put those examples forward as legitimate. He was putting them forward as examples of how unfair comparisons can be made both ways. They require no defending because as you say, they're ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying that all creationists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics. Just as ridiculous as saying that all atheists are fanatics just because a few are fanatics.

Thank you, at least you understand why I said this.

[Atom]

It is my sincere opinion that human existence is a thorn in the side of evolution theory due to brain dissimilation alone.

[Atom]

As far as I can tell, brain function does not accelerate to such a degree as humans have demonstrated, and thus I conclude that our human intelligence is not natural.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Atom

As far as I can tell, brain function ...

Maybe this helps you understand Atom...

http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/lahn3.pdf
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040429/brainsize.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04103.html
http://esciencenews.com/articles/200.../origins.brain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...lution.science

I think you'll get the big picture after reading those articles, I've been trough a whole lot of them and selected those that combined will give you a good view on what's generally known today about the evolution of the brain.

For more in-depth information on the science involved, there's years of interesting research here.

[babbelon]

Ok before I give my input to this discussion, forgive me for not being very well researched on this topic other than what has been posted here...

After reading the majority of the posts presented in this topic which tell the story of an age old debate between religious people and scientists I have come to the conclusion that neither the evolutionists or the creationists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their schema for creation is 100% correct. Therefore I say that both sides are very much inconclusive and cannot be argued (in whole) as truth or fact. Both sides of this argument are compelling in nature and as a scientist I believe that both sides should be further researched.

It is at this point that I would like to extend a third argument and potential hypothesis to this discussion. Who's to say that the Intelligent Designer in this argument is some supernatural omnipotent being? Could this intelligent designer not be another race of beings far more advanced than our own? Are we really the only intelligent life form in the whole of our universe? Furthermore, Could our existence here on earth be a combination of evolution AND Intelligent Design? I do believe the ancient Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians (just to name a few) had some interesting stories to tell about visitors from the sky and the sea.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by babbelon

Ok before I give my input to this discussion, forgive me for not being very well researched on this topic other than what has been posted here...

After reading the majority of the posts presented in this topic which tell the story of an age old debate between religious people and scientists I have come to the conclusion that neither the evolutionists or the creationists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their schema for creation is 100% correct. Therefore I say that both sides are very much inconclusive and cannot be argued (in whole) as truth or fact. Both sides of this argument are compelling in nature and as a scientist I believe that both sides should be further researched.

It is at this point that I would like to extend a third argument and potential hypothesis to this discussion. Who's to say that the Intelligent Designer in this argument is some supernatural omnipotent being? Could this intelligent designer not be another race of beings far more advanced than our own?

Certainly.

Originally Posted by babbelon

Are we really the only intelligent life form in the whole of our universe?

This is doubtful in my estimation.

Originally Posted by babbelon

Furthermore, Could our existence here on earth be a combination of evolution AND Intelligent Design?

Yes, and this is what I believe may be the case in reality.

Originally Posted by babbelon

I do believe the ancient Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians (just to name a few) had some interesting stories to tell about visitors from the sky and the sea.

True, and I think that these accounts cannot be discounted.

[Muddy]

Tinfoil hats! Step right up! Get your tinfoil hats right here! Just kidding...kinda. OK, I really am just kidding...sorta.

Actually babbelon, isn't what you propose basically the same as saying there's a God? Another being far more advanced than we? Now I understand you're taking it a step further and suggesting there may be more than one - many gods, as it were. Which is just as possible as almost anything else that's been discussed. However, that same old question would still remain. Where did all these gods (beings) come from?

[Ferre]

Well, the Discovery institute as usual is fighting their war to get their misconceptions of science accepted as "controversy" in science class.

THIS is what makes the academic world angry, the dishonest and fraudulent arguments they keep bringing up are a disgrace, they lie and deceit to push their agenda.

A new example is very well explained here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ts_another.php

If you've been following the creationist strategy lately, you know that one of their efforts is to push a new and awful textbook, Explore Evolution, in conjunction with the various political bills to endorse a "strengths & weaknesses" theme in the public school science curriculum. Explore Evolution is the type specimen for that teaching technique; it contains nothing but imaginary problems in biology presented in a dueling opinions format, with creationists writing sloppy distortions of biological ideas coupled with creationists writing laudatory explanations based on Intelligent Design creationism. The book has been reviewed (that is, panned) before, but now we have another review published in Evolution & Development. The reviewer is not impressed.

Of course, most schoolboards will completely disregard the informed assessment of experts in the field to rely instead on the petrified dogma of their local preacher.

There we have it AGAIN. ID/Creationists publish a load of BOGUS CLAIMS which are REJECTED by peer review AS TOTAL RUBBISH and yet, academics are supposed to keep respect for those frauds?

Creationists are exposed to be frauds, liars and dishonest, why should anyone respect them?

A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ook-review.ars

But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book, but its authors are expecting that legislators and the courts will be too stupid to notice that, or to remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion. As laws similar to Louisiana's resurface in other states next year, we can only hope that legislators choose not to live down to the low expectations of EE's authors.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Well, the Discovery institute as usual is fighting their war to get their misconceptions of science accepted as "controversy" in science class.

THIS is what makes the academic world angry, the dishonest and fraudulent arguments they keep bringing up are a disgrace, they lie and deceit to push their agenda.

A new example is very well explained here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ts_another.php


There we have it AGAIN. ID/Creationists publish a load of BOGUS CLAIMS which are REJECTED by peer review AS TOTAL RUBBISH and yet, academics are supposed to keep respect for those frauds?

Creationists are exposed to be frauds, liars and dishonest, why should anyone respect them?

A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ook-review.ars

Same song, second verse. Ahhh, the amnesic powers of cannabis.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Same song, second verse. Ahhh, the amnesic powers of cannabis.

I challenge you, instead of this ad hominem argument, to point out where I was wrong in the arguments I make.

Keep your replies substantive, as per forum rules please.