Author Topic: RNA spontaneously forms in laboratory experiment. (Read 6469 times)

SeventyX7 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:01:07 AM »

Yes, but just because we accept it as fact, doesn't mean that it can be proven to be true. It just hasn't been proven untrue yet.

I know that evolution is how it happened, you know it is how it happened, but this knowledge is drawn from a huge pool of different data that all suggest the same thing. If we only had one piece of this data, one could still create a theory of evolution from it.

Don't forget that up until X point in time, there was a whole lot of observations proving that Jesus was the son of god and could do all sorts of magical things.

Someday we may discover a crashed U.F.O. or something, and it turns out all wombats in the world came from Mars to Earth on it.

On that note, that is the best way faith can contribute to science, the same way race, culture, and upbringing can contribute to science; they provide a diverse population of scientists not just to try to prove what they "know" is right, like evolution, but to challenge it.

zherok · « **Reply #41 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:17:28 AM »

Creationists are coming from the perspective of an idea behind all origin that relies entirely on faith. It is not scientific in any shape way or form. It is not in any way aiding our knowledge of the universe, as it is entirely reliant upon you simply believing without any evidence to support it. You can't get much more unscientific than that.

Yes, it would only take one reliable source of data to disprove the theory. And yet it stands, well after the life of Darwin. It is not as precariously positioned as you would like to imply.

Quote

Don't forget that up until X point in time, there was a whole lot of observations proving that Jesus was the son of god and could do all sorts of magical things.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Some dude claimed Jesus did this stuff, so its the equivalent of evolutionary evidence today? Not exactly a high standard to hold to is it? How would you "observe" that Jesus was the son of God anyway?

fohfoh · « **Reply #42 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:29:51 AM »

Unfortunately, there's certain aspects in religion (mainly christianity) that have shown up. People look at it, claim "bullshit" and walk away. Years later, scientific proof shows up to prove it's true. Stuff like missing cities, the bloody tears/sweat of Jesus, etc.

Now let's roll it in the opposite direction. Flat earth, disproven. But where does it show up in the bible? Nowhere. Blind faith, idiocy. The blood thing? Again, no real biblical support. Again, idiocy. Finally, abortion. Yes/No... there's actually merit behind it. But again. No proper support.

But let's talk about evolution. That's what this thread is about more or less.

The bible talks about many types of plants that no longer exist or are now different strains. Hmm...
The bible talks about certain types of people who were quite different in stature and physical strength... Hmm... too bad the jews used genocide on them...

AceHigh · « **Reply #43 on:** May 21, 2009, 06:11:45 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on May 21, 2009, 05:29:51 AM

The bible talks about many types of plants that no longer exist or are now different strains. Hmm...
The bible talks about certain types of people who were quite different in stature and physical strength... Hmm... too bad the jews used genocide on them...

First of all new testament can be discarded as a book that holds anything close to truth. Rreason: it was written like several hundred of years after the death of Jesus.

That makes it several hundreds of years of rumours and bed time stories. Like:
1st guy: "You know Jesus was this carpenter who really redefined Judaism by making it more about forgiving and compassion"
2nd guy: "You know this great prophet Jesus had the divine inspiration to show us the true faith!"
3rd guy: "You know you can only escape the fate of going to hell through the salvation of Jesus who is a son of god!"

And the same can be said about pretty much everything else. As for the old testament, well.... you guys have seen the movie 300? Where the persian army almost had fairytale monsters and all that shit? That is because the stories were actually written like that. If Goliath was 1,90m in a population of people who were 1,60 at average, then in the stories he will be 3 meters high! So that thing about "different in stature and physical strength" does not mean a thing and can be disregarded.

fohfoh · « **Reply #44 on:** May 21, 2009, 08:07:10 AM »

Which is why the bible was complied based on the most consistent of those stories. I'm not going to go in depth with it, but there's enough research on it done to prove it's not all shits and giggles. Strangely enough though, for the "funky human" part, I wasn't talking about Goliath. I'm pretty sure it mentions somewhere that there are tribes of guys who are almost twice as tall as they are. Now, even if we take in the elaboration, a whole community of people who are in the let's say 6 feet+ range is truly interesting.

And supposedly Joshua found fruits that were HUGE in comparison to the fruits they were used to seeing. Assuming a grape the size of a tennis ball and not even a grapefruit or bigger... that's still huge.

AceHigh · « **Reply #45 on:** May 21, 2009, 08:17:09 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on May 21, 2009, 08:07:10 AM

And supposedly Joshua found fruits that were HUGE in comparison to the fruits they were used to seeing. Assuming a grape the size of a tennis ball and not even a grapefruit or bigger... that's still huge.

Proin found what? $:-\$

Besides even old testaments are not old enough to witness the evolution, so I bet most of that is made up. Besides many dates of people's birth and death suggest that they were several hundreds of years old. I think that is all just a miscalculation.

fohfoh · « **Reply #46 on:** May 21, 2009, 11:21:00 AM »

Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on May 21, 2009, 08:17:09 AM

Quote from: fohfoh on May 21, 2009, 08:07:10 AM
And supposedly Joshua found fruits that were HUGE in comparison to the fruits they were used to seeing. Assuming a grape the size of a tennis ball and not even a grapefruit or bigger... that's still huge.

Proin found what? $:-\$

Besides even old testaments are not old enough to witness the evolution, so I bet most of that is made up. Besides many dates of people's birth and death suggest that they were several hundreds of years old. I think that is all just a miscalculation.

Either it's a fucked up calendar, or a process original humans had that disappeared over time. We never know. But something looks funny in genesis... people live 900 years and then it falls drastically t about 600 to later about 100-300 by the end of that book. (The old testament is also arranged in order of size and not historical... so it's a weird issue. Maybe some of the bacteria, viruses, parasites etc in our bodies that we became "symbiotes to" lowered our average age?

We'll never know...

vicious796 · « **Reply #47 on:** May 21, 2009, 04:01:36 PM »

I'm not talking about the original theory of evolution, I'm talking about now. History doesn't mean anything when you're asking about a present scientist's drive. Really, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate because there is no solid anything on the subject of a human's motivation. Can you seriously tell me that there is no chance that any scientist in the world that is working on the subject of evolution isn't driven by a desire to prove or disprove it to aid or crush creationists? The original scientists working on the theory of evolution have nothing to do with this, I'm talking about the immature, petty people of today.

zherok · « **Reply #48 on:** May 21, 2009, 04:59:58 PM »

You can certainly find evolutionary scientists with a bent against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Does that mean that evolution is propelled by religion? Maybe for Dawkins. But it doesn't have to be his only motivation and it doesn't mean that all research on the subject matter is. It definitely doesn't mean that had religion not existed, that no one would research evolution.

quekmeister · « **Reply #49 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:25:50 PM »

Quote from: zherok on May 21, 2009, 04:59:58 PM

You can certainly find evolutionary scientists with a bent against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Does that mean that evolution is propelled by religion? Maybe for Dawkins. But it doesn't have to be his only motivation and it doesn't mean that all research on the subject matter is. It definitely doesn't mean that had religion not existed, that no one would research evolution.

I lost all respect for Dawkins when I watched one of his lectures where he ripped apart this young woman for even speculating about religious truth. She was being polite too. There are many religious fundamentalists around, but Dawkins is proof that atheism (technically also a religion, right?) has its own fundamentalists.

vicious796 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 21, 2009, 05:57:24 PM »

I'm not trying to say every scientist does what they do for religious purposes, I'm just saying religion and science are not 100% seperate. There is no 100%. Like I said, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I've got some clients in at work so I've only got a minute or two to read and post so this is fun for me. XD

zherok · « **Reply #51 on:** May 21, 2009, 10:35:34 PM »

Quote from: quekmeister on May 21, 2009, 05:25:50 PM

I lost all respect for Dawkins when I watched one of his lectures where he ripped apart this young woman for even speculating about religious truth. She was being polite too. There are many religious fundamentalists around, but Dawkins is proof that atheism (technically also a religion, right?) has its own fundamentalists.

I think I've seen that video, yeah hes not terribly polite at times. As for atheism, I think it would qualify as a belief system, but it lacks the social aspects to tie to religion. There's no proper way to be an atheist.

SeventyX7 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 22, 2009, 01:58:08 AM »

I don't really know if atheism could be called a belief system. At it's core, isn't it really a lack of belief? Furthermore, there's no real "Atheist doctrine" on what Atheists belief.

If it's not organized in any way, can it really be called a religion?

zherok · « **Reply #53 on:** May 22, 2009, 02:08:04 AM »

No, at it's core it's a belief that something does not exist. It's very much a position, whereas a lack of belief would be equivalent to not thinking about it. There are weaker forms of atheism and agnosticism that describe those things.

SeventyX7 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 22, 2009, 02:11:55 AM »

The main reason why I think that atheism can't count as a belief system is it's not systematized.

Sure it's a belief, but then again, I believe that butterscotch is the most horrid abomination to grace the Earth, and the mere smell of it makes me feel like throwing up.

I'm talking about belief systems, really, Atheism just comprises a whole bunch of other belief systems (only one that comes to mind at the moment is Nihilism).

zherok · « **Reply #55 on:** May 22, 2009, 02:26:32 AM »

That kinda sounds like saying Christianity isn't a belief system, but just a whole bunch of sub-sects.

I think you're focusing too much on this impression that atheism is the lack of something. Your inclusion of Nihilism with Atheism is kinda telling in that regard. I don't think believing there isn't a God is the absence you're ascribing to it.

SeventyX7 · « **Reply #56 on:** May 22, 2009, 02:40:19 AM »

I believe there aren't flying pigs. Is that a belief system?

And Christianity's divisions are completely different. They all follow the same book and same basic idea.

Atheism is different, in that the only similarity in followers is that God doesn't exist. For it to be a belief system, per say, shouldn't there be more?

fohfoh · « **Reply #57 on:** May 22, 2009, 01:18:32 PM »

I really don't want to toss out the religous studies card, so let's just say that atheism is indeed a belief system but religous aspects are a little iffy. This is after all supposed to be about rna and at least somewhere close to the topic of evolution.

AceHigh · « **Reply #58 on:** May 22, 2009, 02:25:36 PM »

Quote from: zherok on May 22, 2009, 02:08:04 AM

No, at it's core it's a belief that something does not exist. It's very much a position, whereas a lack of belief would be equivalent to not thinking about it. There are weaker forms of atheism and agnosticism that describe those things.

Religion: "God exists!" (organized Religion and beliefs)
Atheism: "There is no god!" (conviction and belief)
Agnosticism: Meh... fuck it, I am going home"

(lack of belief, "not thinking about it")

fohfoh · « **Reply #59 on:** May 22, 2009, 04:03:03 PM »

Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on May 22, 2009, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: zherok on May 22, 2009, 02:08:04 AM
No, at it's core it's a belief that something does not exist. It's very much a position, whereas a lack of belief would be equivalent to not thinking about it. There are weaker forms of atheism and agnosticism that describe those things.

Religion: "God exists!" (organized Religion and beliefs)
Atheism: "There is no god!" (conviction and belief)
Agnosticism: Meh... fuck it, I am going home" (lack of belief, "not thinking about it")

You fail to mention that agnostics (originals) were party animals... They liked having a pint.