Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2009, 03:25 PM   #71 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,502
Default

not everyone's going to be a scientist, or a mathematician, or a writer, or a linguist, but everyone's probably going to ask "where did we come from and why" at some point. yet we avoid teaching religion and philosophy in secondary school and instead focus on retaining specialized knowledge which will be mostly useless in the long run. that makes a lot of sense. and we won't know the impact on society until we change things... that's the beauty and downfall of social theory.
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 03:33 PM   #72 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Default

why does it always come down to religion and science?? everyone thinks religion is against science for some reason. i'm sure there are your religious fanatics that will discredit science but they have there own agendas. science can be used to back up the creation theory but you have bring god into it as well. the whole god created the world and we evolved from nothing are only the theories as to how we began. beyond that everything is science and not doesn't involve the religion aspect.

Last edited by punkrawker07; 03-19-2009 at 04:03 PM.
punkrawker07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 03:46 PM   #73 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Default

a point i might add here is that the theory of creation doesn't necessarily mean we were created by the god of the bible. it could be that we were created by some kind of being whether it be god, aliens, or maybe we are just a lab experiment by a superior race watching to see what we do. that sounds crazy to me but the point is that i believe we were created by someone or something way more complex and knowledgable then us.
punkrawker07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 03:54 PM   #74 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,502
Default

which means that that thing must have been created by something way more complex than it, and that thing by something more complex than it, etc etc into infinity. you should probably rethink your strategy. unless that spiraling infinite model of the universe is ok with you... i like it but i would try to make it more circular.
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 04:01 PM   #75 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Default

good point. i was more or less trying to separate the religion aspect of it which instantly if you don't believe in religion throws away the creation theory and leaves you with evolution, but i guess that doesn't work really either. my head is beginning to hurt though so mainly i have no problems with both theories being taught in school. if you want to continue to debate evolution hopefully someone with more knowledge than me comes in here.
punkrawker07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 04:04 PM   #76 (permalink)
;)
 
cardboard adolescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,502
Default

i think the question that only religion can answer and that science can only spin about hopelessly is this: "why evolve?"
cardboard adolescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 05:03 PM   #77 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by punkrawker07 View Post
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

here is something i c/p from allaboutscience.org. not to carry on the argument but to present that even darwin himself states that it seems unlikely. to be honest i only know the creation and evolution as far as explaining how we came to be. in light of the advances we've made in science and understanding things evolution could be wrong but the only other option is creation which is based out of religion. so what do you believe is true? well if you don't believe in a god well that leaves evolution even though it may not be right. i can't tell you either evolution or creation is correct but there is the unexplained in both.
Your quotation is ridiculous. It's copied from a biased site that is made to spread "credible" misinformation. It's an example of tooth and claw.

It contains unsourced statements and says naive things like that bacterias way less than 10-12 grams (well, of course they do .. a bacteria at 10-12 grams would be a ****ing monster).

Irreducable complexity has been pushed as a creationist argument, but it doesn't hold water. The first claim I read and became a popular argument against evolution was that bacterial flagella could not have evolved because a transitional stage would serve no purpose .. and as such, the proto-flagella which would be a requirement to evolve the real flagella could not be evolved.

That claim was forwarded by creationist pseudoscientists in a very unscientifical manner and has since subsequently been refuted by biologists.

Again, Wikipedia sums it up so nicely, so I'll just copy and paste from there :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe cited the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved through naturalistic means. Behe argued that the flagellum becomes useless if any one of its constituent parts is removed, and thus could not have arisen through numerous, successive, slight modifications; therefore, it is hopelessly improbable that the proteins making up the flagellar motor could have come together all at once, by chance.[28] Mark Perakh explained that while Behe popularized the idea, biologist Hermann J. Müller had already explored it (under the slightly different name of “interlocking complexity”) and more than a decade before Behe’s book the same idea was explored by A. Graham Cairns-Smith, but neither claimed that “irreducible complexity” was a “marker” of a supernatural design.[29]
While Behe discussed the immune system and the blood clotting cascade in greater detail, the bacterial flagellum has become a "poster child" for intelligent design proponents and other creationists.[citation needed] It is one of two identified rotary structures found in nature (the other being ATP synthase)[30] and it is billions of years older than Behe's other two examples, which exist in many homologous forms, simplifying the explanation of their origin.[31]
Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[32] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system.[33][34]
Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.[35]
References supporting the Wikipedia quotation :
  • 32^Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (October 2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella". Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4 (10): 784–90. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493. PMID 16953248.
  • 33^ Miller KR. "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"". Welcome to the web Site of the Dragonfly Book. Retrieved on 2008-06-02.
  • 34^ Dembski WA (2003-02-17). "The bacterial flagellum: still spinning just fine". Design Inference Website. Retrieved on 2008-06-02.
  • 35^ "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
(Flagellum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now .. seriously .. You should take this to heart :

If you want scientific knowledge, don't go and get it from a creationist website. What are you thinking? You've written about the importance of being a sceptic more than once, yet that doesn't stop you from quoting a load of crap from one of the biggest ****factories out there.

Furthermore, and I have to say this irritates me greatly, you and that website are deliberately misquoting Charles Darwin which I find quite hard to swallow. The sentences posted on that site are taken out of their context and if you include the rest of Darwin's message, the point becomes in fact the opposite!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
I am frankly disgusted at how these people operate and spread misinformation.

Please, for God's, Darwin's, yourself or anyone's sake, don't be such a ****ing tool. These people only want to corrupt and hide the truth from you, even to the point where they are twisting Darwin's words to support creationism. You preach scepticism, so practice it!
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

Last edited by tore; 03-19-2009 at 05:30 PM.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 12:02 AM   #78 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by punkrawker07 View Post
good point. i was more or less trying to separate the religion aspect of it which instantly if you don't believe in religion throws away the creation theory and leaves you with evolution, but i guess that doesn't work really either. my head is beginning to hurt though so mainly i have no problems with both theories being taught in school. if you want to continue to debate evolution hopefully someone with more knowledge than me comes in here.
Let me spell this out for you:
There is no scientific basis for believing (Key word here: believing) in intelligent design. It is not a theory.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 08:14 AM   #79 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Yukon Cornelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 625
Default

Religion was created to keep ppl in line. Thats all it is, nothing more nothing less
__________________
Attempting to find a cure for Stupid...
Yukon Cornelius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2009, 08:44 AM   #80 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
Religion was created to keep ppl in line. Thats all it is, nothing more nothing less
How so? Instead of posting just one line, back up your claim if you can.

To me it sounds logical that if we humans know nothing of where we come from, what happens after you die, what's the meaning of life and so on, then ideas that give answer to those questions are gonna pop up and become popular.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.