14-08-2005 20:41									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Mitochondria, different types of DNA structures (bacteria versus protozoa, for example), chloroplasts, plus various other organelles in various kinds of independent, non-bacterial cells. Plus some of the weird crap out there, like ricketsia (did I spell that right after almost 30 years?), etc. I suspect Kuci is even more up to date than I am, he's been in school alot more recently.

First let me admit that I'm not all that interested in this subject, and I don't know all that much about it, but answers like this raise a red flag with me. To me when you are talking about topics that rely on people's beliefs and one or both sides start talking about evidence that is 'significant' but really isn't and calling the otherside morons you've lost all reason, and the more I see 'scientists' claim how unbiased they are the more I see how much they are.

	14-08-2005 20:53									#152
	Support Apolyton

The history of science is littered with young upstarts upsetting the world order and the old guard refusing to accept the new theories and ideas. They both have faith in science. Its not the theories they trust, its the method of how they come to accept them.

	14-08-2005 21:05									#153
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious the more I see 'scientists' claim how unbiased they are the more I see how much they are.

They are biased towards methodology. Proven methods, that are corroborated by other scientists. The creationists have no methodology. They are basing their conclusions on faith without any basis in fact.

	14-08-2005 21:08									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy If I read all those qualifications give by people to creationists I must conclude that creationism must be right since there's no reason to bash something that often and that hard if it doesn't exist at all. My father always teached my sister and me, when we were arguing, that the one who was yelling and insulting most obviously was wrong. He appeared to be right most of the times. I don't believe in evolution, well, I don't believe that the current living organisms have evolved from one first living cell or whatever. I'm not sure if I'm a creationist. I believe that God may have created the earth 6000 years ago. Might have been much longer ago though. In fact I'm sure that the earth's not younger then 6000 years

You must believe in a lot of contradictory things.

Seriously, what's so hard about believing God is behind evolution?!

	14-08-2005 21:10									#155
	Suffering from ads?

Thank you Cybershy. I was perusing the thread and came to the same conclusion. I know plenty of scientists that see science as supporting their own religious beliefs, and if you go back in history, you'll find that this is the case for many of the scientists back then too.

It's only been recently that scientists have been discouraged from taking this approach, as the concept that education necessarily relies upon removing references to God has become ascendant. To the scientists that that are the giants upon which today's scientists stand upon, such a statement would be seen as nonsensical at best, and dangerous at worst.

	14-08-2005 21:13									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: They are biased towards methodology. Proven methods, that are corroborated by other scientists. The creationists have no methodology. They are basing their conclusions on faith without any basis in fact.

Perhaps then you ought to look more closely at the evolutionists' necessary plank of abiogenesis, where living things are said to form from non-living matter.

	14-08-2005 21:16									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Being overly reductionist once more BK? Explain why you don't like abiogenesis...

	14-08-2005 21:18									#158
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin The history of science is littered with young upstarts upsetting the world order and the old guard refusing to accept the new theories and ideas. They both have faith in science. Its not the theories they trust, its the method of how they come to accept them.

So what ever theory I come up with using the scientific method is fact, and any theory that isn't based on that method is false? What kind of reasoning is that?

	14-08-2005 21:19									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Depends on whether it stands up to scientific scrutiny...

	14-08-2005 21:20									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I know plenty of scientists that see science as supporting their own religious beliefs, and if you go back in history, you'll find that this is the case for many of the scientists back then too.

And how many of them have read Leibniz?

quote: It's only been recently that scientists have been discouraged from taking this approach, as the concept that education necessarily relies upon removing references to God has become ascendant. To the scientists that that are the giants upon which today's scientists stand upon, such a statement would be seen as nonsensical at best, and dangerous at worst.

Why? One is less inclined to see God in, say, m-theory, than Copernicus for example, although m-theory can trace its lineage back then.

	14-08-2005 21:22									#161
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So what ever theory I come up with using the scientific method is fact, and any theory that isn't based on that method is false? What kind of reasoning is that?

Scientific method is a method of testing propositions, not necessarily coming up with them.

	14-08-2005 21:27									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Scientific method is a method of testing propositions, not necessarily coming up with them.

Well it should be that way shouldn't it, but it is not always that way. Sometimes people develope theories that will test well.

	14-08-2005 21:32									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Theben You must believe in a lot of contradictory things. Seriously, what's so hard about believing God is behind evolution?!

Most people believe in a lot of contradictory things, mostly because we're not capable to keep a correct track of all our believes
But what made you say what you said?

And in response to your 2nd comment:
What makes you think that I do not believe that God is behind evolution?

	14-08-2005 21:34									#164
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious What 'significant' evidence Kuci?

Mostly phylogenetic studies.

They indicate that any common ancestor would have had to have a very large number of cellular traits that were lost by its various descendents as they branched out. The theory is that the common ancestor was actually just a loose community of protocells which were just simple membranes with some very primitive genetic elements that easily passed in and out of the membrane, leading to mostly lateral spread of traits rather than inheritence.

	14-08-2005 21:37									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Perhaps then you ought to look more closely at the evolutionists' necessary plank of abiogenesis, where living things are said to form from non-living matter.

Scientists do not have all the answers, but they have provided us with so many. What answers has faith provided us with? Science probably will never answer the unanswerable questions, so we have religion and faith for the big questions. Is there life after death? What is the origin of the universe? What is the meaning and origin of life? Religion and faith act as anodynes towards these gaping blanks in our knowledge.

The fact that scientists cannot answer these questions does not make all scientific inquiry invalid and does not discredit evolutionary theory. We don't fully understand gravity, but we don't assume that god is holding us to the surface of the earth. It just shows the current limitations of science. Science still has a long way to go. The human species is very young geologically speaking and I am certain if the species survives that we will still learn amazing things about ourselves and the universe that we live in.

Religion and faith provide no answers. They provide comforting myths to plug the holes in our knowledge. They are a bulwark against existential angst and for those who cannot face a nihilistic universe.

	14-08-2005 22:47									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think we ought to add to public school curriculla courses on Philosophy and Religion. For younger kids such courses would largely deal with ethics and interpersonal relationships, then in the higher grades material more traditionally associated with those subjects would be taught. In such a course teashers could allow the students leeway to explore creationism and the philosophy of science and make up their own minds.

	15-08-2005 00:13									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc We already have genetically engineered rice with added vitamins to fight the deficiencies so prevalent in parts of the third world. They are working to develop "vaccine plants" that would take the place of some of the standard vaccines that could save tens of thousands of poor children per year.

Golden rice isn't such a cut and dried subject (pardon the pun). The actual results from the rie will be rather insignificant, but the project serves very well to sucker people into being less critical of GMO projects than they should be.

Golden rice, and by extension, all GMOs, are being touted as a cure for world malnutricion and hunger, when in fact that even a diet consisting of nothing but golden rice would provide only 10% of the necessary vitamin A (6% for pregnent women). However, since beta carotene is fat soluable, not even that rate would be achieved in the real world.

The problem isn't improper food, but an improper distribution system that means that the poor don't get enough food to eat. GMOs won't stop that. They will, however, excaserbate 3rd world poverty, as more and more peasants lose the ability to maintain their land and join the cities' shantytowns.

	15-08-2005 00:29									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Well it should be that way shouldn't it, but it is not always that way. Sometimes people develope theories that will test well.

The point is that a theory is only as good as its ability to be verified and applied. If a theory works well it is retained, if it fails it is of less use and may or may not be discarded depending on its failing. The idea of a faith in theory is unfounded, but you can have degrees of confidence in its ability to explain things and make predictions by testing them continously.

Having faith in the in the idea that predicting, testing, and reproducing results will lead to better understanding is the crux issue. The theory can be right or wrong, but its the scientific method which will tell you which one is more appropriate and applicable

Of course there is no way to be certain that the laws of nature will not change from one day to the next or one place to another - an apparently accurate theory today could become useless tomorrow, or useless somewhere else. You have to have faith that it won't, if for no other reason than you need a working assumption. An assumption that the scientific method would accept as being false if needs be.

	15-08-2005 00:48									#169
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker They indicate that any common ancestor would have had to have a very large number of cellular traits that were lost by its various descendents as they branched out. The theory is that the common ancestor was actually just a loose community of protocells which were just simple membranes with some very primitive genetic elements that easily passed in and out of the membrane, leading to mostly lateral spread of traits rather than inheritence.

I've never really liked the progenote hypothesis.

	15-08-2005 01:09									#170
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Mitochondria, different types of DNA structures (bacteria versus protozoa, for example), chloroplasts, plus various other organelles in various kinds of independent, non-bacterial cells. Plus some of the weird crap out there, like ricketsia (did I spell that right after almost 30 years?), etc. I suspect Kuci is even more up to date than I am, he's been in school alot more recently.

Mitochondria are dirived from an aerobic eubacterium, related to the modern purpule non-sulfur bacteria and rickettsias, that formed a symbiotic relationship with an archaebacterium. this symbiosis eventually became the modern eukaryotic cell.

Cloroplasts come from a cyanobacterium that formed a symbiotic relationship with the common protozoan ancestor of red algae, green algae, and land plants (all other algae, like kelps, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and Euglenoids come from other unrelated protozoans that engulfed red or green algae).

	15-08-2005 01:20									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Mostly phylogenetic studies. They indicate that any common ancestor would have had to have a very large number of cellular traits that were lost by its various descendents as they branched out. The theory is that the common ancestor was actually just a loose community of protocells which were just simple membranes with some very primitive genetic elements that easily passed in and out of the membrane, leading to mostly lateral spread of traits rather than inheritence.

Do I really have to tell you that this is not evidence that species evolved they way that you think they did?

	15-08-2005 01:29									#172
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin The point is that a theory is only as good as its ability to be verified and applied.

No. That is incorrect. There are things that are true that are not verifiable. But the real point is that scientists also believe things that are not verifiable, like the Theory of Evolution.

quote: Having faith in the in the idea that predicting, testing, and reproducing results will lead to better understanding is the crux issue.

Does anyone disagree with that? Not me.

quote: The theory can be right or wrong, but its the scientific method which will tell you which one is more appropriate and applicable

Not in the case of the Theory of Evolution because it is reasonable to believe that the theory is false and also reasonable to believe that the theory is true. So what good is the scientific method in this case?

quote: Of course there is no way to be certain that the laws of nature will not change from one day to the next or one place to another - an apparently accurate theory today could become useless tomorrow, or useless somewhere else. You have to have faith that it won't, if for no other reason than you need a working assumption. An assumption that the scientific method would accept as being false if needs be.

I don't have any problem with the laws of nature.

	15-08-2005 01:49									#173
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No. That is incorrect. There are things that are true that are not verifiable. But the real point is that scientists also believe things that are not verifiable, like the Theory of Evolution.

Of course things can be true and non-verifiable, but any such theory is meaningless without reference to verifiables.

quote: Not in the case of the Theory of Evolution because it is reasonable to believe that the theory is false and also reasonable to believe that the theory is true. So what good is the scientific method in this case?

The scientific method gives a confidence in the theory as it requests quantifiable, measurable and predictated results that can be repeated and compared to to the theory. Where the theory continually measures up it gains credibility, and where it fails the theory is refined or replaced.

It is entirely possible the theory of evolution is wrong, the scientific method does not say that the theory of evolution is right. It just says that on the strong balance of probability, it is. If someone has an alternate theory, and it measures up better, then the scientific method will say you should discard evolution. Any scientist worth his salt would take heed.

	15-08-2005 02:01									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Y'know, I shied away from this thread because I initially read it as "45% of Americans are Mormons."

Now I'm bowing out because I put more of my faith in science, but this is just turning into another Conservative-Liberal style debate where people just talk past each other.

	15-08-2005 02:05									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed Y'know, I shied away from this thread because I initially read it as "45% of Americans are Mormons."

There was a copycat thread called just that.

	15-08-2005 02:12									#176
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Do I really have to tell you that this is not evidence that species evolved they way that you think they did?

Did you think I was presenting it as evidence as such?

I was merely commenting on an interesting fact, that you were probably (unintentionally) correct in asserting that life did not arise from a single ancestral cell.

	15-08-2005 02:13									#177
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No. That is incorrect. There are things that are true that are not verifiable. But the real point is that scientists also believe things that are not verifiable, like the Theory of Evolution.

Not verifiable? How the hell did you figure that out? There are so many examples. Not just the microbiological but also observation of artificial selection and my favourite, clonal selection in the immune system.

quote: Does anyone disagree with that? Not me.

It's not a belief. It's been shown to be a system that works. There is no belief required whatsoever, it's not some random myth, it's a model.

quote: Not in the case of the Theory of Evolution because it is reasonable to believe that the theory is false and also reasonable to believe that the theory is true. So what good is the scientific method in this case? I don't have any problem with the laws of nature.

See my above post. The theory of evolution has stood up to all manner of scrutiny. The only thing that has happened to it is it has been refined in light of our knowledge of heredity and genetics. The original theory was correct, just incomplete, and at the time of Darwin, couldn't possibly be complete...

	15-08-2005 02:24									#178
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kid, weren't you a teacher? Please tell me you didn't teach science.

	15-08-2005 02:25									#179
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Perhaps then you ought to look more closely at the evolutionists' necessary plank of abiogenesis, where living things are said to form from non-living matter.

Abiogenisis is not only highly plausible, but scientists have been getting pretty close to achieving it in the laboratory.

	15-08-2005 02:48									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: And you have faith in this statement.

Not blind faith, or almost blind faith. You could say that I "believe this to be the truth", but that's true of any opinion held by anyone ever. I am perfectly willing to reconsider if you come up with major flows in this, or come up with something better.