DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ohio Christian school tells student to skip prom

Quote:

---

I'll bet you two are a ball of fun at a party.

---

Chicks dig it

Quote:

---

I'll bet you two are a ball of fun at a party.

---

Quote:

---

But you discard it because...."well it happened". Don't you see???....the fact that it happened when it is impossible is a RESULT.

---

But the fact that happens, and has been shown to happen quite often, disproves the idea that it's a statistical improbability. His results point to the improbable because he's basing it off of his idea of what evolution actually is. He says that it's improbable because he thinks that random mutation means a change in the whole or most of the genome that creates a new being from another. And that's not what evolution is, and no science has ever shown it to be. Gradual changes over time to and organisms genome can lead to new adaptations. I've given plenty of examples in my last few posts ranging from naked RNA molecules to salamanders to whales. Statistics aren't the final say in a matter, especially when stats can be twisted and turned on themselves. Observation and experimental validation trump stats every second of every day of the week.

Let me ask you something Do you believe that the earth is roughly 6-10 thousand years old based off of the mathematical findings of one man using the bible as his only source of information? So then why should this statistical method that has been proven to be lacking due to observation be any different? Both the stats and 6kyear old earth are shown to be wrong by observation and study.

Quote:

---

So since we have observed this non random act...

---

Quote:

---

WHEREVER THAT MIGHT LEAD ...but you don't dismiss information just because it might lead to a conclusion that you don't like

---

Does that mean away from creationism? Does that mean towards a science based explanation? Because so far, thats the direct we're going. There's still no hard evidence to suggest it can go the other way. As i said before, just because it's improbable, doesn't make it impossible. We see the evidence of "fast" evolutionary change in many avenues of science, which flies in the face of the statistics. Invoking God is unnecessary due to the amount evidence present at this time and bringing a faith based opinion into a science argument and touting it as fact without any evidence is not science at that point anymore.

So, you can voice your opinion that God created the universe through natural means and the end result is earth, but it's not a substitute for science.

Also, I'm really enjoying this Even if the rest of the board got tired of it after page three

Also, to revise my previous post, I would never do this at a party and chicks would definitely not dig this

Quote:

---

But the fact that happens, and has been shown to happen quite often, disproves the idea that it's a statistical improbability.

---

Quote:

---

No, your shaping the facts to your own premise. YOU think it's non-random due to a statistical argument.

---

Quote:

---

Does that mean away from creationism?

---

Maybe....maybe not...If in the end there was incontravertible evidence found that showed that God created the World word for word as in the Bible and then set every thing up to observe how humans react.....(relax...this is hypothetical...get the brown bag...breathe into it ...big breaths...lol)....Do you have the guts to accept that? I do...I would be reluctant but willing to accept the other path as well...as a matter of fact I accept much if not all of what that path has lead to....I just feel they are leaving something out...lol

Quote:

---

Does that mean towards a science based explanation?

---

Maybe....Maybe not...lets let the evidence...ALL the evidence lead the way and lets have OPEN MINDS along this journey.



I am enjoying this too...and yes this would definitely banish us to the geek corner at any party...LOL

Quote:

---

The math is SOLID...it is FACT...it is CONCRETE....It is the ONE constant in this discussion. Not only that it is UNBIASED....It is the one thing that shouldn't be ignored....yet you throw it out because it doesn't fit what you see and it doesn't fit what you want your results to be and then "I" am the one shaping the facts???? Just because you don't like the fact that 2+2=4 does not mean you can dismiss that fact that it does in fact =4. Even if what your experiments are telling you is different. If your experiments tell you different....then you look for WHY....you don't throw out the math.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe....maybe not...If in the end there was incontravertible evidence found that showed that God created the World word for word as in the Bible and then set every thing up to observe how humans react....

---

Quote:

---

Sarcasm is my way of making myself feel better.... it diminishes the fact I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Even if the math is correct, you still have to show that it applies to this situation, while draftdayz and myself have already given you several reasons why it doesn't apply.

---

No you have only shown that it did not apply...but you did not show WHY.....Because your why ends up being to dismiss the math because of a bias against your argument.

And why do you continually link to wikipedia to bolster your argument??? That is the absolute worst thing you can do...

Quote:

---

However, it is BECAUSE of the genetic differences between different chimpanzee populations, that over time, local populations of chimpanzees can eventually accumulate some of the genetic variations which lead to the creation of humans.

---

Quote:

---

Of course I would believe that if there was in fact evidence. I would also believe that little green men created the human race as a big joke, or that the Evil Lord Xenu set this all up as storage for his thetans or whatever. If there happened to be evidence for any of that. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to support any of these conjectures, while there is mountains of evidence to support evolution. I've asked many times for somebody on this board to bring up evidence for creation, and so far, nobody has produced anything.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with "not knowing".....the problem comes when people haven't actually looked at the evidence, and become convinced that their hours worth of thought on the matter somehow overturn the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the topic.

---

Maybe we are not too far apart after all...

Quote:

---

WRONG!!!All it does is prove that there is something else happening that the math has not accounted for. Be that God, a higher being, a substance we have no knowledge of, whatever.....

---

Quote:

---

The math is SOLID...it is FACT...it is CONCRETE....It is the ONE constant in this discussion.

---

Stats are not concrete . If there's anything that we know as Brown's fans it's that stats can misrepresent fact. In this sense, the reason, as i stated before, why i dont believe this is correct is because the author shows a lack of understanding when it comes to evolution. They posit things that the Theory of Evolution doesn't posit, and then go on their way to showing exactly how astronomically impossible it is. They don't take evolution as we know it into consideration, just one that is a common misconception among the creationism/ID crowd.

Quote:

---

yet you throw it out because it doesn't fit what you see

---

Quote:

---

and it doesn't fit what you want your results to be and then "I" am the one shaping the facts????

---

Quote:

---

Just because you don't like the fact that 2+2=4 does not mean you can dismiss that fact that it does in fact =4. Even if what your experiments are telling you is different. If your experiments tell you different....then you look for WHY....you don't throw out the math.

---

How very scientific!!! You're exactly right too. The Modern Synthesis is the 2+2, evolution is the observed 4. The equation you're positing is more along the lines of 2+2+x=4. We're not reverse engineering here. I'm being serious when i say that there's more and more evidence coming out that common descent is true not just because of fossils, but because our genetic material tells us so, our observations in embryonic development tells us so, and the working of our proteins tells us so.

Quote:

---

Do you have the guts to accept that?

---

Quote:

---

I just feel they are leaving something out

---

Quote:

---

What more about the perfect helical shape of a DNA molecule made up of 4 molecules and 4 molecules only in EVERY single strand that has ever existed......in something that is supposed to be "organic", "chaotic", and "random" in its creation(including its mutation) do you need to see before it clicks that there is something not completely natural about it...there is just too much order in its design....I mean if you saw a circuit board sitting in the middle of the woods...would you think that it grew there naturally???? Then why haven't you asked yourself this question concerning the design of DNA???

---

Quote:

---

Point 1: There is absolutely ZERO traces of any history or civilization on earth prior to 4,000 B.C if man had been around for billions of years and had stopped evolving 100,000 years ago like some dishonest scientists claim, then show me evidence of it. I triple dog dare you to find me any trace of civilization prior to 4,000 BC, and I don't mean some pottery jug you claim is 14,000 years old, show me evidence of civilization, nations, cities, wars, writtings, etc...you won't find any.

---

Quote:

---

Point 2: The record of Languages, spoken and written never date back beyond 3,000 b.c and radiate outward from Mesopotamia.

For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we today call the Indo-European Language Family. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be close to the Ararat range. Thieme, a Sanskrit and comparative philology expert at Yale University, gives this estimate:

"Indo-European, I conjecture, was spoken on the Baltic coast of Germany late in the fourth millennium B.C. [c. 3000 B.C.]."—*Paul Thieme, "The Indo-European Language,

---

Quote:

---

Point 3:the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."

The earliest king lists only go back to shortly before 3000 B.C.
"The Egyptian king lists go back to the First Dynasty of Egypt, and little before 3000 B.C. Before that, there were no written records anywhere."—*Colin Renfrew

"Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent."—H. Enoch

"The earliest written language, Sumerian cuneiform, goes back to about 3500 B.C."—*Ashley Montagu

"Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read."

---

Quote:

---

One last note, the Mayan Calendar says everything started 59 days before the Hebrew Calendar

---

Quote:

---

i have written historical records that prove my stance, I don't see you folks giving me any tangible evidence to believe any otherwise...

---

Quote:

---

So you telling me, Human beings have went from writing on paper to high tech laser printers and computers in less than 150 years, but it took us 3 billion years to learn how to talk and write?

---

Quote:

---

Evolution is very easy theory to disprove and it doens't take much ingenuity and very simple questions to figure this all out either.

---

Quote:

---

Yes I actuallly "privatly" asked 3 Anthropologists, 1 Archaeologist, and 3 scientists with PHD's about this fact...do you know I was told that "No date beyond 4000B.C is known with any degree of certainity, they are "estimations" they are not facts....in reality I was told many cave paintings may actually only be about 3500 BC and not any older (All of this is hear-say. Not only that, wrong since about 2001. Read below on carbon dating.) ....there are many variables scientists don't publish in their finds (Correct, it's called negative data. It is usually data that doesn't fall into the 95% confidence interval we use. ie, the hypothesis was proven wrong.) , they are motivated by fame and notoriety. All the facts and methods are rarely exposed

---

Quote:

---

So you telling me, Human beings have went from writing on paper to high tech laser printers and computers in less than 150 years, but it took us 3 billion years to learn how to talk and write?

---

Quote:

---

I find many scientific thinkers throw common sense and reason out the window with their theories and hypothesis.....they then talk around your issues with "perceived" complicatedness and utter jibberish that will confuse the weak-minded.

---

Yes, we find that keeping the "complicatedness" tucked into books, magazines, and journal articles at local libraries keeps people nice and ignorant

Quote:

---

i have written historical records that prove my stance, I don't see you folks giving me any tangible evidence to believe any otherwise...

---

Quote:

---

you going to believe history(something that is documented and very easily provable) or some theory......

---

Quote:

---

history says I am correct,

---

Quote:

---

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

---

Quote:

---

"Over time, breading between small populations of the human race, without crossbreeding, would strengthen these difference. We know that this would happen because once base pairs have locked in differences,"

That may well be the most sensual statement I've read on this board.You sir,are a romantic at heart.

---

Quote:

---

I'll bet you two are a ball of fun at a party.

---

Hey those LAMBDA LAMBDA LAMBDA guys can throw one hell of party,especially when the Omega Moos come over.


KING