Pelican Parts Forums - All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled" (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/404886-all-evolutionists-go-see-movie-expelled.html)

I agree with some of the others above - I'm unsubscribing as well.

Todd's words sum it up best:

That would about sum it up. Completely pointless to discuss. No (or extremely limited) underlying knowledge of the subject matter at hand and a totally disingenuous process in his retorts. There can be no discourse under those conditions, only blather, huffing, and puffing

Best,

Kurt

I loved Barry Lyndon. The encounter in the forest with the very polite robbers was classic!

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 3898804)

That would about sum it up. Completely pointless to discuss. No (or extremely limited) underlying knowledge of the subject matter at hand and a totally disingenuous process in his retorts. There can be no discourse under those conditions, only blather, huffing, and puffing.

I watched Barry Lyndon this weekend. It wasn't about evolution per se, but you could see the evolution of Kubrick's work. Totally set the stage for Eyes Wide Shut. Do you think aliens might have planted Kubrick as well? Or was he ID?

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 3898685)

Wow, well thought out post.

1) Show me when evolution has ever predicted, then been empirically observed, and thereby proven, in a laboratory environment. Lacking that it's not fact.

2) Why were scientists completely wrong about the first species they theorize we all evolved from?

3) How did so many species devolve? How did the first life form devolve into a sea sponge, the previously thought first life form?

3) What do you call the deliberate altering of existing species, thereby creating all new sub-species by scientists in a lab? It's sure not evolution. I would call it Intelligent design, by it's very nature.

I await the answers to these simple questions.

Why do you impose the limit of “laboratory environment” in question 1? First of all, it has been seen in a laboratory environment, but more importantly, a laboratory environment is not a requirement of science. Plenty of science happens outside the lab. This restriction you have put on science clearly shows your lack of understanding of how the process works.

Question 2 is a good example of how Ben Stein is wrong about people being expelled for questioning science. Someone questioned what species we originally evolved from, and they were not expelled. The reason they were not expelled is that the presented sound, solid science showing why they were right. Creationists have not done that, and that is why they are expelled.

People are expelled from the realms of science for not using science, not for what they believe.

You are clearly uneducated in both evolution and ID. While I doubt I can get you to read about science and evolution, you might want to read about the Dover trial and ID:

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

This trial clearly showed the lack of science behind ID. That is why ID is expelled from the realm of science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 3898671)

No Captain flash, it is a theory. Seek a dictonary to determine the difference between the two.

Again, since you seem to have problems with this small truth, evolution is -NOT- a fact.

Ah yes, here come the insults.

Thanks for adding so much to this thread.

Hmmm, so the guy is saying "Well i was lying then, but now i'm telling the truth. I was just humoring him."

Sounds like bullshiit to me.

EXACTLY.

Evolution is theory. It may be our best theory, but it's still just theory. I have little doubt that in 100 years we will have very different views on this, and probably almost all, scientific issues.

Had someone tried to advance string theory in 1800, he'd have been called a moron by every scientist alive. Now, all this time later, it is plausible(ish), so it is a relatively sound theory, but it IS NOT FACT.

You enlightened Evolutionists who are convinced Evolution is a 'fact', you go ahead and show me a moment of evolution- where "species A" gives birth to an entirely new, naturally evolved "species B" in a controlled laboratory environment.

I won't hold my breath though, because that has never happened.

PS: And if evolutionary theory is so 100% ironclad sound, why were scientists predictions about the 'base species'(my term, invented just now, i think) on earth so wrong?

They told us that all life evolved from simple sponges. But wait, now they say we evolved from a much more complex sort of jelly fish organism. No one had predicted this. So sponges evolved BACKWARDS? Hmmm.....seems highly problematic to me.

And here's the real kicker: Through DNA cloning and someday soon artificial intelligence in machines, there is already direct empirical evidence that intelligent design eixsts now...and it is a power WE already control.

Hence it could be accurately stated that intelligent design is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

So put that in your primordal stew and munch on it. ;)

Here we have yet another creationist who either doesn’t understand the scientific usage of the word theory, or someone who is bending the definition to what they want it to mean.

I suggest that you go beyond the dictionary to educate yourself on this important distinction.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote:

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

The key above is the words “in common usage.” In science, on the other hand:

Quote:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

I would like someone who is completely qualified in I.D. to comment here. Not some bull***** " I read somewhere" answers. Who here can speak from their scientific background with a degree in evolutionary biology. If you can't then anything you say ain't worth crap.

What I find soooo funny is that everyone on this board talks as though they were science professors or geneticists, constantly impugning any point that is not in direct agreement with theirs. They speak as though they have spent they're entire life studying evolution, genetics, the fossil record, radiometric dating, carbon dating and anything else remotely related to to study of evolution. They all tell you to go and take years of advanced science courses before you can engage in the discussion. Than the kicker, they all show where they have gotten they're knowledge, because they all follow up with the same old cut and past link from,,,,yes you guessed wikipedia!

Hint, since all you guys are so smart, why are you wasting your time on a pelican forum with posts numbering in the thousands! All the weekend wrenches here are suddenly tenured science professors.

Well, I could just make stuff up instead.

Oh, wait... that's already been done.

Personally, I vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1208821834.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr (Post 3899755)

my phd advisor:

http://www.cce.caltech.edu/faculty/richards/research.html

My postdoc advisor:

http://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/craik_charles.php

An example of my work as faculty before I changed careers is 2000:

Engineered Metal Binding Sites on Green Fluorescence Protein

Received 2 July 1999. Available online 12 April 2002.
Abstract

The ability to assay a variety of metals by noninvasive methods has applications in both biomedical and environmental research. Green fluorescent protein (GFP) is a protein isolated from coelenterates that exhibits spontaneous fluorescence. GFP does not require any exogenous cofactors for fluorescence, and can be easily appended to other proteins at the DNA level, producing a fluorescence-labeled target protein in vivo. Metals in close proximity to chromophores are known to quench fluorescence in a distance-dependent fashion. Potential metal binding sites on the surface of GFP have been identified and mutant proteins have been designed, created, and characterized. These metal-binding mutants of GFP exhibit fluorescence quenching at lower transition metal ion concentrations than those of the wild-type protein. These GFP mutants represent a new class of protein-based metal sensors.

Author Keywords: green fluorescent protein; metal binding; fluorescence quenching; mutagenesis

References

1. J. Morin and J. Hastings. J. Cell Physiol. 77 (1971), pp. 318–328.

2. Kahana, J., and Silver, P.inCurrent Protocols in Molecular Biology (F. Ausabel, et al., Eds.), pp. 9.7.22–9.7.28. Green and Wiley, NY.

3. M. Ormo, A. Cubitt, L. Kallio, L. Gross, R. Tsien and S. Remington. Science 273 (1996), pp. 1392–1395. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (833)

4. F. Yang, L. Moss and G. Phillips. Nature/Biotech 14 (1996), pp. 1246–1251. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (568)

5. C. Cody, D. Prasher, W. Westler, F. Pendergast and W. Ward. Biochemistry 32 (1993), pp. 1212–1218. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (340)

6. D. Prasher, V. Eckenrode, W. Ward, F. Prendergast and M. Cormier. Gene 111 (1992), pp. 229–233. Article | PDF (446 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (920)

7. M. Chalfie, Y. Tu, G. Euskirchen, W. Ward and D. Prasher. Science 263 (1994), pp. 802–805. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2797)

8. J. Kahana, B. Schapp and P. Silver. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92 (1995), pp. 9707–9711. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (94)

9. S. Casper and C. Holt. Gene 173 (1996), pp. 69–73. Article | PDF (357 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37)

10. S. Wang and T. Hazelrigg. Nature 369 (1994), pp. 400–403. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (283)

11. B. Ludin, T. Doll, R. Meill, S. Kaech and A. Matus. Gene 173 (1996), pp. 107–111. Article | PDF (549 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (46)

12. A. Cubit, R. Heim, S. Adams, A. Boyd, L. Gross and R. Tsien. TIBS 20 (1995), pp. 448–455.

13. R. Mitra, C. Silva and D. Youvan. Gene 173 (1996), pp. 13–17. Article | PDF (384 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (157)

14. R. Chen. Anal. Let. 19 (1986), pp. 963–977.

15. R. Heim, D. Prasher and R. Tsien. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91 (1994), pp. 12501–12504. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (707)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewolf (Post 3899749)

You want someone with a degree in evolutionary biology to speak on ID? You don’t already know what they’d say?

A good source for what you are asking for is the expert testimony in the Dover trial on ID. You can read what various witnesses said here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial#Witnesses

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewolf (Post 3899749)

See what I mean! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are in the wrong forum. If you want to discuss this with people holding advanced degrees related to evolution, than why are you discussing this topic on a pelican parts forum. Go to the appropriate forum and make sure that you have your advanced degree in science to keep things fair. I don't think anyone here should discuss Porsche's either unless they have an advanced automotive degree specializing in German cars.

Case in Point: Michael Behe is the premier expert on ID.

Quote:

Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin's Black Box.

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

Nice touch Kang with the wikipedia link. I couldnt have done it better myself.
Gotta love you guys!

The full Dover transcripts are available here:

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

or here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Days 10-12 are Behe's testimony. I highly recommend reading these as they show just how bankrupt ID is even presented by its star proponent.

Barbara Forrest's testimony is also very interesting and Ken Miller provides an excellent primer on evolution.

If you read anything, the final decision and Behe's testimony are the most important.

why do I hear crickets chirping after Rodsrsr questioned credentials and I provided mine.

pwnd?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kang (Post 3899773)

LOL, that's my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr (Post 3899780)

LOL, Hey I'm not the goose trying to explain I.D. so I don't need squat. You on the other hand are trying to refute evolution from what I can gather. So, where is your degree? You must be an expert, yes? If that's the case, what are you doing here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr (Post 3899755)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr (Post 3899780)

I don't think anyone here should discuss Porsche's either unless they have an advanced automotive degree specializing in German cars.

Somebody with a garage, a book or this forum, and a toolbox can learn to work on a car. To learn molecular biology takes expensive specialized equipment -- the stuff you find at universities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rearden (Post 3900488)

Somebody with a garage, a book or this forum, and a toolbox can learn to work on a car. To learn molecular biology takes expensive specialized equipment -- the stuff you find at universities.

that's just crazy talk. All you need to do is watch a movie. For instance, I'm now an expert on global warming, the health care system, and Big Macs. All because of documentaries!

Gotta get back to the tube so I can get more smarterer...

What is it about Dawkins? He is an idiot Savot in a wheelchair. What special in site does he provide? He claims to know Physics, but has not done a single significant thing to advance the field. What are his qualifications concerning the spiritual side of man? He has NONE. Dawkins is a FK ing idiot. My Dog knows more than he does about the spiritual side of man.

ID is completely consistent with evolution. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a THEORY. Most religious beleive in evolution as it is consistent with most religions. Belief in GOD does not exclude belief in evolution. Only IGNORANT people think that religious people do not beleive in evolution, and there are a lot of them. Ignorance must be bliss as these people cannot conceive that religion is consistent with evolution. Only homos that have a bias against religion beleive this. Apparently because religion condemns their risky, abhorrent behavior they cannot beleive in anything that might condemn them, even if it were true. Only homos seem to be resistant to the fact that ID may be true and that they may actually be condemned for their behavior.

So called scientists (I suspect that only homos are in this category) will not even discuss the possibility of ID. Any true scientist will be glad to discuss any alternatives, again only the homos seem to have a problem.

Bottom line, it appears that the so called scientists (most likely homos) will not discuss any theory that might indite them, or condemn them, not matter how valid that theory may be. Its to bad that science takes a back seat to homos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman (Post 3900517)

Dawkins is not in a wheel chair, nor is he an "idiot savant".