Author Topic: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor  (Read 5697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2011, 08:33:24 AM »
So...if I indeed I did source: "ttp://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/ager's_opinion_of%20yec_henke.htm", what would be wrong with that?

It's intellectual honesty to either use your own ideas and words or give credit when you use the ideas and words of others.  The problem is not that you used someones words.  The problem is you didn't inform others that those were not your words.

Disagree....I "THINK"  for myself.  Sure, I have read a plethora of books, articles, science texts, gotten degrees, etc. blah, blah, blah,.....Bottom line, I take all that input and speak for myself.  What I have found out is that no matter what schools, degrees, accolades, etc. etc. etc.;  if you believe in God....You are an idiot per modern day "scientific" acknowledgments.  Therefore my "signature" after each of my posts.

jtp56,

You did not provide a link to the source you quoted in this reply: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20817.msg462245.html#msg462245

You do not have a choice to "disagree" in this case, as quoting someone else's words without citation is against the forum rules.  If you paste words from another author, you must provide a citation to that work using either a link, or a publication.

Jetson

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2011, 09:45:02 AM »
you say that "time, heat, and pressure" aren't necessary to form rock. do you have any examples of this other than concrete? which by the way, is neither natural nor a rock?

Funny how he has to use something man-made[1] to prove his "point."
 1. or at least have the ingredients 'encouraged' by man to be in the same place at the same time in a certain mixture with a certain amount of water to have the specific desired effect, for which as implicitly stated, has not occured naturally for concrete.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5378
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2011, 09:56:46 AM »
So...if I indeed I did source: "ttp://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/ager's_opinion_of%20yec_henke.htm", what would be wrong with that?

It's intellectual honesty to either use your own ideas and words or give credit when you use the ideas and words of others.  The problem is not that you used someones words.  The problem is you didn't inform others that those were not your words.

Disagree....I "THINK"  for myself.  Sure, I have read a plethora of books, articles, science texts, gotten degrees, etc. blah, blah, blah,.....Bottom line, I take all that input and speak for myself.  What I have found out is that no matter what schools, degrees, accolades, etc. etc. etc.;  if you believe in God....You are an idiot per modern day "scientific" acknowledgments.  Therefore my "signature" after each of my posts.

.....god belief is not a requirement for some idiots to be classed as an idiot. In fact god belief is just a very common accretion to the skill set and attributes of the simpleminded, after all god-belief doesn't require intellect, and it obviously doesn't require honesty.

Some idiots even claim that a drop, is not a unit of measurement. (a small thing in itself) but the most glaring evidence of their total lack of intellectual honesty (or perhaps of their hubris and lack of fundamental integrity) is the amazing lengths they will go to to avoid even acknowledging the truth once they have been shown their error.

Personally, I think that it is this sort of deliberate willingness to be disingenuous and slippery that robs these idiots of any credibility, and basically places them squarely amongst those immoral hypocrites who hide their sly and dishonest nature behind the laughable pretence of god given morality.

Of course in an ocean sized soup there will always be bottom-feeders  ...filtering the crap that drifts down from above, believing it to be manna from heaven.

If they would all just dry up, then we really would see a "drop" in the ocean of idiocy.
 
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline kevinagain

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Darwins +8/-0
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #32 on: December 09, 2011, 10:37:29 AM »

Funny how he has to use something man-made to prove his "point."

technically, though, it can happen, and i've seen it. in southeastern new mexico i've seen salt deposits form in evaporite basins, crystalizing around twigs and fence wire in clumps as thick as your wrist. very pretty stuff, and halite is technically a rock. i've also seen wet caves there with modern light bulbs partially encased in deposited limestone from saturated water dripping down the walls. so it's certainly possible to make rock pretty quick, so long as you include chemical precipitation.

but the kinds of rock that contain fossils are typically clastics-- fine sandstones, mudstones, carbonates, and volcanic ashes. if they can form rock in a few hours, then i should be able to see it happening today, and i don't.

so i'm not convinced.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #33 on: December 09, 2011, 12:55:31 PM »
Jellyfish, which dissolve in hours on the beach, are fossilized, why not early single celled to multi-celled whatevers?

I didn't say they couldn't have fossilized.  The problem is you're looking for a fossilized single-celled organism dating back 4 billion years in which the search covers the entire globe.  The amount of tectonic shift, weather/erosion, and other events have destroyed whatever fossils may date from that time.

Quote
They are not there, that's why not!

Probably not.  But simply because you do not find a 4 billion year old fossil does not discredit the theory of evolution.

Quote
I read a "scientific" article the other day why they had to "rethink" the whole evolutionary model because they found fossilized footprints underneath the animal that was the link between the lake/sea animal and a land walking animal.

Which paper was that?

Quote
When will the evidence be there?

It is there.  People of all sorts have been trying to discredit the theory of evolution for 150+ years and so far they have not succeeded.  If the measure of a good theory is the abuse it can take while still standing - evolution is the strongest theory around.

Quote
There is not enough death/fossils to support your theory of billions of years.

There is and the evidence shows it if you only look.

Quote
There is only enough evidence to support advanced life starting about 6000 years ago.

Advanced life is older than 6000 years as is the entire planet.  Radiometric dating shows the planet to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Evidence shows that life began around 4 billion years ago and multicellular life began well after that.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 01:05:11 PM by Irish »
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #34 on: December 09, 2011, 05:26:00 PM »
I read a "scientific" article the other day why they had to "rethink" the whole evolutionary model because they found fossilized footprints underneath the animal that was the link between the lake/sea animal and a land walking animal.

Which paper was that?

Probably some wooish garbage of the type that would've been shown on 'In Search Of...' back in the 1970's.

When will the evidence be there?

It is there.  People of all sorts have been trying to discredit the theory of evolution for 150+ years and so far they have not succeeded.  If the measure of a good theory is the abuse it can take while still standing - evolution is the strongest theory around.

jtp has been told this many times before. He's willfully ignoring the evidence as far as I'm concerned.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #35 on: December 09, 2011, 07:12:50 PM »
When will the evidence be there?

It is there.  People of all sorts have been trying to discredit the theory of evolution for 150+ years and so far they have not succeeded.  If the measure of a good theory is the abuse it can take while still standing - evolution is the strongest theory around.

jtp has been told this many times before. He's willfully ignoring the evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Oh really.  I guess I just don't know who jtp is or his back story.  I haven't seen him around the forum until now.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2011, 02:35:30 PM »
This is just awesome. (I'm guessing creationists will ignore it or come up with some way to claim jesus did it)

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/11/26/luca-was-ocean-sized/

I thought I was reading a script for some new science fiction thriller. And you guys laugh at us for believing the so-called "silly" stories of the Bible ?  Bah. That's some pretty imaginative stuff right there. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone finds a family photo of LUCA with gramps, nana, and LUCA Jr....and then that should settle the case once and for all.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2011, 02:49:01 PM »
I thought I was reading a script for some new science fiction thriller. And you guys laugh at us for believing the so-called "silly" stories of the Bible ?  Bah. That's some pretty imaginative stuff right there. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone finds a family photo of LUCA with gramps, nana, and LUCA Jr....and then that should settle the case once and for all.

this is rather silly sounding but less if you actually read the original article
Quote
The latest results suggest LUCA was the result of early life's fight to survive, attempts at which turned the ocean into a global genetic swap shop for hundreds of millions of years. Cells struggling to survive on their own exchanged useful parts with each other without competition - effectively creating a global mega-organism.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

Of course, we laugh at you for believing the baseless nonsense of the bible.  The silliness of the flood, the ridiculousness of such an inept god who thinks that his creation can have a mate of a armadillo, etc.   Love watching hypocrites like you ignore the evidence that science has, and so willingly using the same science that you hate so much as long as it makes you comfy-womfy.   ;D
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 02:51:01 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1767
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2011, 03:18:03 PM »


I thought I was reading a script for some new science fiction thriller. And you guys laugh at us for believing the so-called "silly" stories of the Bible ?  Bah. That's some pretty imaginative stuff right there.

Riiight. So you have actual evidence for the Garden of Eden, the Noachian flood and the Exodus? Until you do, darn right we're going to keep laughing at you for believing in myths with no basis. And opposing people who want to see those myths put on an equal level with actual facts.

Caetano-Anolles has a theory. There is some evidence to support it; remains to be seen if it stands or falls compared to other theories of early life.

Quote
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone finds a family photo of LUCA with gramps, nana, and LUCA Jr....and then that should settle the case once and for all.

Given the track record of science, that's a far surer bet than someone finding evidence for creationism.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2011, 03:21:26 PM »
Of course, we laugh at you for believing the baseless nonsense of the bible.  The silliness of the flood, the ridiculousness of such an inept god who thinks that his creation can have a mate of a armadillo, etc.   Love watching hypocrites like you ignore the evidence that science has, and so willingly using the same science that you hate so much as long as it makes you comfy-womfy.   ;D

If you believe fairytale nonsense like that then I say you've drank waaaay waaay too much evolution flavored Kool-Aid.

Organelles without DNA ??
He offers no reason, no cause, and the evidence is a dreamed up concoction of heavily qualified hypothetical sequences peppered with some reinforcing language for effect.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2011, 03:23:48 PM »
Given the track record of science, that's a far surer bet than someone finding evidence for creationism.

A "bet?" Is that what you are calling your beliefs ? ......................ah, nevermind.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2011, 03:24:06 PM »
BibleStudent,

The article isn't stating that LUCA was the size of the ocean.  Rather, the genetic swapping that took place early on in the rise of life could be considered a super-organism with many different protoforms of life competing for ground with rampant swapping of genetic information.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2011, 03:25:26 PM »
Organelles without DNA ??

What exactly do you mean by this?
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2011, 03:31:12 PM »
Of course, we laugh at you for believing the baseless nonsense of the bible.  The silliness of the flood, the ridiculousness of such an inept god who thinks that his creation can have a mate of a armadillo, etc.   Love watching hypocrites like you ignore the evidence that science has, and so willingly using the same science that you hate so much as long as it makes you comfy-womfy.   ;D

If you believe fairytale nonsense like that then I say you've drank waaaay waaay too much evolution flavored Kool-Aid.
you can say anything you want.  However, that doesnt' make you right.   And fairytale nonsense, like talkign animals, magic spells, etc.  Hmmm, where have I seen those and have heard those claimed as true? 

Quote
Organelles without DNA ??
He offers no reason, no cause, and the evidence is a dreamed up concoction of heavily qualified hypothetical sequences peppered with some reinforcing language for effect.
Yep, organells without DNA.  Please do tell us why that is so odd, in your own words BS.  Tell us how you, someone who is amazingly ignorant in so many things, including biology, know so much better than a biologist who has indeed come up with a hypothesis.   T 

and hmmm, heavily qualified hypothetical sequences, peppered with reinforcing language, no reason, no cause, why I know!  That's the usual excuses ginned up by a Christian about his god that he can't provide any evidence for or any evidence for the essential events in his magic book. 

 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2011, 04:12:26 PM »
Organelles without DNA ??

What exactly do you mean by this?
Yep, organells without DNA.  Please do tell us why that is so odd, in your own words BS.  Tell us how you, someone who is amazingly ignorant in so many things, including biology, know so much better than a biologist who has indeed come up with a hypothesis.   T 

and hmmm, heavily qualified hypothetical sequences, peppered with reinforcing language, no reason, no cause, why I know!  That's the usual excuses ginned up by a Christian about his god that he can't provide any evidence for or any evidence for the essential events in his magic book.   

Nevermind. I went back and re-read the article and I think I was so amused at the wild imagination of the author that I thought I read that he indicated there was no DNA present....which he does suggest....however, what immediately follows his comment is some speculation that RNA was probably present as this wild orgy of exchange was taking place.


and hmmm, heavily qualified hypothetical sequences, peppered with reinforcing language, no reason, no cause, why I know!  That's the usual excuses ginned up by a Christian about his god that he can't provide any evidence for or any evidence for the essential events in his magic book. 

But it's somehow "reasonable" to use the same methodology you vehemently ridicule to support your evolutionary model ??? How convenient.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2011, 04:19:55 PM »
Nevermind. I went back and re-read the article and I think I was so amused at the wild imagination of the author that I thought I read that he indicated there was no DNA present....which he does suggest....however, what immediately follows his comment is some speculation that RNA was probably present as this wild orgy of exchange was taking place.
  Ah, “never mind”. Hello there, Emily Littella.  Of course, never mind since you can’t actually address the questions asked of you about your attacks on things you are ignorant about. 

and hmmm, heavily qualified hypothetical sequences, peppered with reinforcing language, no reason, no cause, why I know!  That's the usual excuses ginned up by a Christian about his god that he can't provide any evidence for or any evidence for the essential events in his magic book. 
Quote
But it's somehow "reasonable" to use the same methodology you vehemently ridicule to support your evolutionary model ??? How convenient.
Nope, not what I said at all. How inconvenient for you. Tsk. I am making fun of you trying to claim that a biologist is doing this when he isn’t and it being exactly what so many theists try.  You want to make these accusations, then make them with evidence of your claims.  Go ahead, I’m sure you can if you made them, right?  Or it comes down to more attempts by a theist to lie about someone else, using big sciency sounding words. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2011, 04:46:14 PM »
Nope, not what I said at all. How inconvenient for you. Tsk. I am making fun of you trying to claim that a biologist is doing this when he isn’t and it being exactly what so many theists try.  You want to make these accusations, then make them with evidence of your claims.  Go ahead, I’m sure you can if you made them, right?  Or it comes down to more attempts by a theist to lie about someone else, using big sciency sounding words. 

Well, for whatever it's worth, I do feel kind of bad for poor LUCA…having to be there in that water all by himself….I mean herself…..or maybe it was unisex-self. I dunno. The inner turmoil must have been grueling and would have made LUCA  a good candidate for some anti-depressants. Can’t imagine my innards battling so furiously with each other for the right parts so it could spring forth as the very first descendant of father LUCA. What an honor it must have been. I’m sure father LUCA was proud and taught his little guy/girl how to grow up so that someday his/her descendants could sprout penises and vaginas and master the art of swimming and then grow legs so they could walk on the non-water and then go on to become pigs, dogs, monkeys and then someday if they were really good, man would evolve. The only thing missing from that story is a yellow brick road.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1767
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2011, 04:49:18 PM »
The only thing missing from that story is a yellow brick road.

Nevermind the strawman. Your alternative, with supporting evidence, is... ?
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2011, 04:52:43 PM »
Let me get this straight... BS who believes in a book from an All-Knowing God that doesn't know anything about DNA/RNA, that thinks the Earth is flat and that Mr. Lightning has a house and the Sun has a bed, that all the stars are itty-bitty shiny rocks hammered into the Sky-Dome... and He's going to complain about the possibility of early life not having DNA?

WTF!?

Funny coming from a person that belives in a book that says having goats **** in front of striped poles, makes striped goats. << This is as far into Genetics/DNA as the Bible gets. Guess what? It's wrong.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:54:16 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2011, 09:54:14 PM »
The title of the article isn't even correct:

"Life began with a planetary mega-organism"

Unless this is some abiogenesis event that they are hypothesizing (which is clearly not the case), the author of this "science" publication apparently doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. 

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2011, 08:57:25 AM »
Humans make mistakes, I know that's a big shocker.

At least I'd rather deal with humans that makes mistakes than an All-Knoing God that doesn't know how he made the Earth. That claimes to be perfect, yet whines about mistake after mistake. How can one regret doing something when 14 Billion years ago he made up a Divine Plan, and when everything goes according to his Divine Plan since everything goes according to His Will. "Everything happens for a reason," and that reason is because it is exactly what he wanted.

It's like hacking a game to make yourself invincible and can kill everything in one hit, then bitching because you're invincible and can kill everything in one hit. err... regretting... yet, since he's All-Knowing, he knew all this before hand. Seriously, what a spoiled brat.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #51 on: December 14, 2011, 11:09:39 AM »
wow, nice dodges and rambling on for no good reason.  So much for BibleStudent who has declared that science is so wrong and that he knows better.  Poor BS, just needs attention as a special snowflake. oooh, the title is wrong,  golly, we can't expect people to read more than that.   &)  Seems that BS is just as ignorant about how to title articles to get attention by the masses.  Communications, biology, where will the ignorance end?   Happily, that can be fixed but only if the sufferer wants to.

And this is what this magic omni-everythign god sends to defend him per these Christians?    ;D ;D ;D ;D 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #52 on: December 14, 2011, 01:38:43 PM »
oooh, the title is wrong,  golly, we can't expect people to read more than that. 

Here's the hypocrisy. Whenever I have even alluded to abiogenesis and evolution being closely knit, I am judged and taken to task and called ignorant, uneducated, foolish, etc etc. When someone in the science community does it, it's just a simple error...a human error.....no big deal. I see much discussion around here about the animosity that frequently exists between the theist community and the non-theist community and this is a big reason why. Science makes a mistake or corrects a previously held position on something and "that's okay" for the non-theist. A theist makes a mistake or draws different conclusions from the same data and they are lazy, brainwashed, stupid, ignorant, deluded, predisposed to Bible-God...and on and on it goes.

Secondly, this is the kind of 'propaganda' that is brainwashing our youth in the same manner you criticize religion of. The article reports on a conceptualization of what LUCA may have consisted of....it's an hypothesis. However plausible it may seem to some, it really amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of someone trying to piece together a 200 piece puzzle game with 199 pieces from other puzzles.

Science is a wonderful discipline and something we all benefit from daily. However, when it is used as a weapon to dismantle a long standing belief system that hundreds of millions of people have lived by and believe strongly in, that is just wrong....and highly irresponsible.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #53 on: December 14, 2011, 01:56:27 PM »
However, when [science] is used as a weapon to dismantle a long standing belief system that hundreds of millions of people have lived by and believe strongly in, that is just wrong....and highly irresponsible.

When those hundreds of millions of people believe in total crap, science isn't wrong or irresponsible.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2011, 02:00:14 PM »
oooh, the title is wrong,  golly, we can't expect people to read more than that. 
Here's the hypocrisy. Whenever I have even alluded to abiogenesis and evolution being closely knit, I am judged and taken to task and called ignorant, uneducated, foolish, etc etc. When someone in the science community does it, it's just a simple error...a human error.....no big deal. I see much discussion around here about the animosity that frequently exists between the theist community and the non-theist community and this is a big reason why. Science makes a mistake or corrects a previously held position on something and "that's okay" for the non-theist. A theist makes a mistake or draws different conclusions from the same data and they are lazy, brainwashed, stupid, ignorant, deluded, predisposed to Bible-God...and on and on it goes.
  Yep, you are taken to task here and the title’s author would also be taken to task.  They’re not here, and again, you ignore the other part of my point, that it is a title in a science mag aimed at non-scientists and the copy writers look for something that will get attention.  It’s errors all around (and it’s funny to watch you whine “but but they do it too” as if this makes a difference and excuses you). The problem is with creationists is that they continue making the error in their articles unlike this one.  You keep saying ignorant things like evolution equals abiogenesis and never stop.  As you have said, scientists change their minds and have reasons.  Creationists don’t and keep lying.  That you can’t see the difference is sad and hilarious since you benefit from those scientists correcting previously held positions. 
Quote
Secondly, this is the kind of 'propaganda' that is brainwashing our youth in the same manner you criticize religion of. The article reports on a conceptualization of what LUCA may have consisted of....it's an hypothesis. However plausible it may seem to some, it really amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of someone trying to piece together a 200 piece puzzle game with 199 pieces from other puzzles.
  Oh my my, “propaganda” and ooooh, brainwashing.  Really, how is it doing anything that you claim?  It presents a hypothesis, just like you said.  We can see right in the article that they say they can’t be sure that this is a valid one. No one sayin that this is the absolute invarying truth, like oh, religions do.  It’s hilarious that you go back the usual creationist lies like a dog to vomit.  No, unfortunately for you, the same scientific method to come up with this hypothesis is the same one used for the science you benefit from. No magic puzzle pieces needed at all.
Quote
Science is a wonderful discipline and something we all benefit from daily. However, when it is used as a weapon to dismantle a long standing belief system that hundreds of millions of people have lived by and believe strongly in, that is just wrong....and highly irresponsible.
  why is it wrong, BS?  I’m sure you’d have no problem if your particular belief system was immune and anothers was attacked.   

It does come down to that though doesn’t it, that you think your believe system is immune and shouldn’t be questioned?  People believed in Zeus and Odin strongly but gee, Christians didn’t respect that. No, they converted and killed over their religion. How “irresponsible”. &)   You want everyone to go “Oh yes, BS is so right, isn’t he wonderful”, no matter the evidence to the contrary.  However, your bible and your god have shrank and shrank in the face of humanity.  once upon a time , disease was god’s provenance but now we can cure or treat many of them, not depending on “god’s will”.   We hear claims of events in the bible but find that none of them can be supported any more than the events in the Greek myths.  Your bible supports slavery, genocide and ignorance in favor of god’s ‘wisdom’ and we have gone far beyond those primitive ignorant concepts leaving your bible behind. 

There is nothing wrong or irresponsible in showing people that they are wrong and that their baseless beliefs are false.  That’s where the facts lead, not to a worthless claim that you and you alone have a special invisible friend and that invisible friend makes you the bestest.  Show some evidence of this god and then you’ll have a leg to stand on.  But as it stands, you have no more than those religions that came before you.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #55 on: December 14, 2011, 02:36:33 PM »
When those hundreds of millions of people believe in total crap, science isn't wrong or irresponsible.

You can 'believe' that but you do not know it as fact.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #56 on: December 14, 2011, 02:54:15 PM »
Show some evidence of this god and then you’ll have a leg to stand on.  But as it stands, you have no more than those religions that came before you.   

I don't know what triggerred your conversion from Christianity to atheism and it's none of my business. However, you know just as well as anyone what the evidence consists of so stop asking for it. It's a loaded pseudo-rhetorical question coming from you. You claim you looked for God and didn't find Him but that is not true for everyone. I cannot explain why some people can hold the Bible as the ultimate Truth and "experience' God and look at the same scientific data you do and see Him rather soup-to-humans.....but that doesn't make us all idiots or brainwashed fools. I have been reading and participating in these threads for some time now and despite everything thrown at me, I still see God....and, trust me, some of the arguments can be strong. You can call it fear or brainwashing or whatever else you feel it may be but to me it is VERY real.

I'm sorry that you cannot satisfy your desire to locate Him and shake hands with Him and interact with Him in the same way we, as humans, do. But, please, use caution and be responsible when introducing your beliefs as the only 'logical' explanation. When you don't, you are doing the very thing us theists are often criticized for and that is trying to jam our high and mighty belief system down your throat. I am not suggesting that you lack any foundation to hold up your beliefs but it is no more irrefutable than the theist claims.

I've looked through my children's school biology books and, frankly, I find it disturbing and so very irresponsible to see the level of alleged 'proof' behind what should be presented as a highly unfinished evolutionary model.

That's all I have to say for now.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1767
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #57 on: December 14, 2011, 03:23:56 PM »
When those hundreds of millions of people believe in total crap, science isn't wrong or irresponsible.

You can 'believe' that but you do not know it as fact.

Where religion and its followers make specific claims (a flood covered all the Earth and drowned all but a few people and animals, the universe was created in a week and is less than 10,000 years old) and empirical reasoning / science shows those claims wrong, then yes: we do know that it's a fact those claims are wrong.

But, please, use caution and be responsible when introducing your beliefs as the only 'logical' explanation. When you don't, you are doing the very thing us theists are often criticized for and that is trying to jam our high and mighty belief system down your throat. I am not suggesting that you lack any foundation to hold up your beliefs but it is no more irrefutable than the theist claims.

I've looked through my children's school biology books and, frankly, I find it disturbing and so very irresponsible to see the level of alleged 'proof' behind what should be presented as a highly unfinished evolutionary model.

That's all I have to say for now.

Biblestudent, what many of us find strange about your inability to accept evolutionary theory is that it has been confirmed and continues to be confirmed by the same scientific empiricism that you do accept in other areas. The immunizations that you and your children receive, the food that you eat (its cultivation, husbandry, processing and delivery), your ability to debate with us on this forum: all products of the same reasoning process.

The TOE was even more controversial when it was first popularized than it is now. It gained and has continued to gain support because it works. If it wasn't valid, then none of the science and industry based on it would be valid: we couldn't predict the development of trans-species diseases like bird or swine influenza, much less prepare vaccines for them just in case there's an outbreak. The improvement of food plants and animals would be haphazard, animals would be useless for testing human medicines... the list goes on and on.

At this point, evolutionary theory is as solid as the theories that allow your PC to come on when you touch a button. The same legwork of empirical reasoning and experimentation bears it out.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius