TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 eMTee: Is science only science when it is explained in evolutionary form, and when it is not..does it make it not science? Creation science is not science. Evolution is science. eMTee: If I want to read some real science...I should go for National Geographic...because Creation Magazine and other books like that are a bunch of hogwash? Not really, and yes. National Geographic isn't what I had in mind for real science: it's not devoted to science. I would say Discover (good), Scientific American (better), and Science or Nature (best). And yes, Creation science is hogwash. eMTee: And sence when does creation controdict science? Uhm, when it says the Earth and Universe are only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Uhm, when it says that there was a global, Biblical flood, that explains the fossil record and geology. Uhm, when it says that evolution is a lie. Uhm, when it says that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Ok..is geoligy science? Uhm, when it says the Earth and Universe are only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Uhm, when it says that there was a global, Biblical flood, that explains the fossil record and geology. Uhm, when it says that evolution is a lie. Uhm, when it says that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. and when does any of that have to do with creation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Ok..is geoligy science?Well, that certainly reveals a bit more about what you don't know. Geology most certainly is a branch of science and anyone with any knowledge of science would know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 C1ay: Well, that certainly reveals a bit more about what you don't know. Geology most certainly is a branch of science and anyone with any knowledge of science would know that. Maybe he was thinking of "flood geology", which isn't science! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Maybe he was thinking of "flood geology", which isn't science! :-)Well, there is hydrology but he didn't mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Tell me biochemist, if you what you assert is true, then how did scientists place a spider-silk gene into goats and have them produce spider silk!!!...You lose.Keep your head in the sand, TM. If lysosomes (or some other scavenger pathway) did not take out the majority of foreign proteins, what fraction of intracellular proteins would be functional??????? Let's be generous and assume that every mutation in 10,000 was positive (a ludicrously favorable assumption). This would mean that one protein in 10,000 was used functionally in the cell. This would mean that 99.99% of protein weight, food consumption, energy consumption, and intracellular machine-time utilization (remember these are competitive processes) was for maintenance and production of nonfunctional proteins. Are you really suggesting this is true??????? And the fact the foreign proteins are frequently functional raises as many additional problems as it solves. 1) How do scavenger pathways know which ones to eradicate? 2) Where do they get that information? 3) How long (phylogenetically) did they have it? 4) What was required for that recognition system to "evolve"? 5) How could anything have "evolved" before it existed? 6) How do prokaryotes survive without this complexity? 7) If prokaryotes have this much complexity, how in the world could they have developed in perhaps 500 million years from scratch after the earth cooled? I am sure there are dozens more "obvious" problems. It is NOT UNREASONABLE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM. Just like Gould (et al) when they surfaced punctuated equilibrium. They did not offer a solution, they just circumscribed a problem. And they saw it as a serious problem. You can keep your head in the sand as long as you like. Identifying a protein (or a thousand proteins) that are not eradicated by lysosomes DOES NOT address the problem. I am done with defending an obvious position and having you characterize this as "non-science" or losing some sort of argument. Your behaviour in this topic is clearly incredibly biased (not to mention hostile), and it is a disservice to the forum. Act like the knowledgeable guy you are, not like a vindictive screed writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 eMTee: And sence when does creation controdict science? TeleMad: Uhm, when it says the Earth and Universe are only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Uhm, when it says that there was a global, Biblical flood, that explains the fossil record and geology. Uhm, when it says that evolution is a lie. Uhm, when it says that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. eMTee: and when does any of that have to do with creation? Are you serious? YOU were the one who brought up Ken Ham and Creation Science, remember… eMTee: Clay...would you like to debate with Ken Ham, and I would encurage you to go to the Museum after it is finished, and see...and go to creation science seminars. Do you know who Ken Ham is? Here’s some… ”A founder and president/CEO of Answers in Genesis (the US ministry began in 1994 with the purpose of upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse), Ken is the author of many books on Genesis, including the best-selling The Lie: Evolution, …… Ken’s emphasis is on the relevance and authority of the book of Genesis to the life of the average Christian, and how compromise views about Genesis have opened a dangerous door regarding how the culture and church view biblical authority.” … Ken states: “The devastating effect that evolutionary humanism has had on society, and even the church, makes it clear that everyone—including Christians—needs to return to the clear teachings of Scripture and Genesis and acknowledge Christ as our Creator and Savior. In fact, Genesis has the answer to many of the problems facing the compromising church and questioning world today.”Here are some of Ken’s lecture titles:Genesis—The Key to Reclaiming the Culture The Relevance of Creation—Why Does It All Matter? Defending the Authority of the Bible in a Secular “Scientific” Age … How to Restore Biblical Truths in a Compromising Church and Society—Lessons from the Scopes Trial …Genesis and the Decay of the Nations—The Genesis Solution to the Evolution Revolution Facts and Bias: Creation Vs. Evolution, Two Worldviews in Conflict … What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp) And we can find Ken Ham actually defending the Biblical flood story: ”In telling us about the world-changing Flood in the days of Noah, the Bible gives us much information about where the waters came from and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis 7:11 as "the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven." … Authors: Ken Ham, …”(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html) So let’s see, I’ve documented your Ken Ham holding and presenting “Evolution is a lie” and “Noah’s flood actually happened” positions, both of which contradict science and both of which I listed and you pretended didn’t have anything to do with Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Just so we are all on the same page, "flood geology" refers to the Young-Earth Creationists' type of 'geology' in which the fossil record and geological constructs are explained by the global Biblical flood of Noah. So even though it has the term "geology" in it, it's not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Biochemist: Keep your head in the sand, TM. LOL! YOU are FLAT OUT WRONG on this. Everyone who can read knows this to be true. OBSERVABLE FACTS, SUCH AS THOSE I PRESENTED, TRUMP YOUR UNSUPPORTED, ANTI-SCIENCE, RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED, PERSONAL SPECULATIONS. The fact that scientists tried to insert just ONE particular protein-coding gene into a mouse in a given experiment, and that ONE particular gene was expressed and the protein functioned, clearly counters your claims. And this isn’t limited to just this one experiment. I've clearly demonstrated - ONCE AGAIN - that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I know that must really irk the pudding out of you. Too bad. Stop saying stupid things and I’ll stop showing how stupid your statements are! Your “biochemical” view of the cell, which would preclude evolution, is wrong. I win. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time. I’ll won’t respond point for point to your ‘counter’ since it amounts to little more than you refusing to accept defeat, trying to use SCIENTIFIC–SOUNDING (but baseless and clearly flawed) arguments to ‘rescue’ your position, etc. … and, we all already know you are wrong anyway. But I will address a few of your statements. Biochemist: This would mean that 99.99% of protein weight, food consumption, energy consumption, and intracellular machine-time utilization (remember these are competitive processes) was for maintenance and production of nonfunctional proteins. Are you really suggesting this is true??????? Don’t going acting like a little brat again and try to stuff YOUR ridiculous, asinine statements into MY mouth in order to try to make me long wrong. How old are you? 10? Grow up. Biochemist: You can keep your head in the sand as long as you like. Identifying a protein (or a thousand proteins) that are not eradicated by lysosomes DOES NOT address the problem. What it DOES do is DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the load of marlarkey you are dishing out. I win. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Just so we are all on the same page, "flood geology" refers to the Young-Earth Creationists' type of 'geology' in which the fossil record and geological constructs are explained by the global Biblical flood of Noah. So even though it has the term "geology" in it, it's not science.Yes, just so we are all on the same page, I didn't mean to imply in any way that hydrologists study mythical floods, I think that would be the job of Osiris :note: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 God exists, and that is a fact. you did not answer my question about creation controdicting science. never mind...it was answered a while ago..the answer was no, because creation doen not need a scientific way to explain it's process, all it needs is belief...evolution is an unperfected theory still full of holes that science does not suport. I did not bring up Ken Ham...and I know where he stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 God exists, and that is a fact. :note: oh yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 God exists, and that is a fact.I challenge you to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 by what means do you want me to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 by what means do you want me to do so?The scientific method utilizing predictable, testable and observable conclusions to your hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 by what means do you want me to do so? haha-stalling, straight out of the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts