Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

He also rarely attempts to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, as far as I can tell.

[Whirlingdervish]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[haunted]

k newbs listen up. scientific design cannot fully disprove God, and vice versa. However, from FACTS we can conclude that all religion is RETARDED.

Haunted has spoken.

[quadz]

From the Proof There's No Such Thing as Intelligent Design dept.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071031/ts_nm/iraq_gay_lawsuit_dc;_ylt=Ao4GR2AzYsXnbAz1bugnGHCs0NUE

[Robot]

Media reports are proof?

[quadz]

Media reports are proof?

Inductive reasoning.  If people exist who are that stupid, intelligent design never happened.


Ha-ha-only-serious,

quadz

[Robot]

Media reports are proof?

Inductive reasoning.  If people exist who are that stupid, intelligent design never happened.


Ha-ha-only-serious,

quadz

Maybe I should start posting "Unsolved mysteries" clips as scientific evidence to support your "hypothesis".

[Jman-CRU]

Inductive reasoning.  If people exist who are that stupid, intelligent design never happened.

Kansas, eh...? I didn't dare to mention it earlier... 
Inductive reasoning... Hey, isn't "intelligent design" taught in biology at Kansas' schools?

Or as an alternative... What was that proof again? - "Everything has a cause. Causes are limited. Kansas is an uncaused cause..."
Well, doesn't sound as bad as I first thought. Otherwise we'd really have to blame "intelligent design".
j/k

Feels like something is missing with "intelligent design" and with it's supporters. Something both seem to be in dire need of. But the word escapes me... 
(Didn't G.W.B. back the demand to teach "i.d." at schools some time ago, too? - "Unmoved mover"... Hm... Lemme check those 5 proofs again.)

[jägermonsta]

Funny that this post was made after your previous post in the other thread.

Oh burn... wait what? What's your point? Ouch. 

 

[haunted]

Ok I said that last post wrong, but I think we know what direction I was leaning in 

[Robot]

[quote author=j

[DaHanG]

then you posted your biased comment regarding quadz's ambiguity in this thread.

I'm not saying quadz is not ambiguous, but could you please point out a specific area (using quotes) where this may be true?

[Robot]

quadz: "And it's a misconception that evolution is a random process."

Evolution here is unclear because you have disrespected the common definition.  You have used it in such a way to include mutations and natural selection.  The rest of the world sees it as being simply the process of change to the genome, from wikipedia: "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next" and britannica's definition: "Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations".  It is nevertheless a broad and ambiguous statement with your definition and with "random" in here.

quadz: "What I was saying was, the genetic mutation is random, but the overarching process of natural selection (of which genetic mutation is just a part) is not random."

Very unclear.  First of all, I could have just easily assumed it was his way of saying it's a magic trick.  The real definition of random is "I don't know how something occured".  If some person says "I was observing the nucleus of a bacterium, and observed random mutations", that is meaningless in terms of how how it happened and neither does it necessarily prove evolution the way you think of it.  quadz's argument of "random mutations" would fall if he could not elucidate how it happened.  And he continued on to just assume we all knew what he was talking about with "random" when we didn't, and then finally said something later on about what it could be.

And second of all, "overarching process" in my mind usually reminds me of complex diagrams of things like second messenger systems in cells overseeing particular processes.  He's already admitted that his way of writing that was unclear.

And third of all, genetic mutation is NOT a part of natural selection, as natural selection only describes that the weak die off, while the strong live on.  You could have a world with absolutely no evolution and still have natural selection.

quadz: "But note that we have demonstrated that the genetic algorithm does work: We have taken the algorithm of the process represented by mutation and natural selection, and used that same algorithm to genetically grow solutions to programming problems."

Suddenly introducing ambiguous terms, "the genetic algorithm" out of nowhere to try to explain something I didn't even ask about!

quadz: "It's no different with antibiotic resistence.
Good ol' wikipedia again:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#An_example:_antibiotic_resistance
"

Adding to the confusion, the wikipedia article talks about the *development* of antibiotic resistance as being the result of natural selection.

"A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms."

WRONG!  I think I will actually go and change that article myself.  An example of natural selection would be the elimination of non-resistant bacteria.

Me: "And let me ask another question, assuming you're right that "random mutations" do happen in the way you'd describe, how do you know the entire evolutionary process is governed by "random mutations"?"

quadz: "I wouldn't say that the process is governed by mutations..."

A boat load of confusion, thanks.

"I've reiterated this in so many ways, saying that the random selection occurs at the protein level,"

"random selection"?  Thanks for more confusion!

Also what's interesting is the way some people change opinions so suddenly.

DaHanG (in response to reaper): "You continuously prove my point. You're obsessed with probabilities, even though science itself has *no problem* with them. Science accepts the *big bang and evolution* as *simply* *the way* the universe *is* because the *evidence* is *simply* too strong."

Yeah, that evidence sure is strong... and talking about probabilities, you should try studying genetics before talking.  And what is that evidence again?  And why are you talking about evolution as though it were the genesis of life?  You don't even know how life originated after such a big bang, and the rest of the science community doesn't either.  Then later when you realize the rest of the community doesn't know, then you comment "I don't know how life originated", thus making your previous statement incorrect.

Oh, and BTW, to all those people treating me like I'm an idiot from statements saying quadz wasn't unclear (such as jagermonsta).. thank you for being so sweet!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised since most of humanity has emotional derangements, you just happen to be a part of that group!  Thank you once again for you "criticism".

[paradisel0st]

 Thank you once again for you(SP) "criticism".

 

[Robot]

Maybe I spelt it that way for a reason, did you think of that?