Hank
Active Member
Wow...you've gone over the edge. Star Trek? You're really putting that forward? Man, this discussion is over.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Prometheus The Supremo
- Start date
Art Vandelay
Active Member
I think it is a valid question. If a viruses mutate at a rapid rate why wouldn't we see what was portrayed in science fiction in reality? Why is a microvirus always a microviurs? If Darwinism explains the emergence of new species why not?
Mutating viruses was given earlier in this debate as proof of the validity of Darwinism.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
i'm not sure if this might have something to do with it....
A virus (from the Latin virus meaning "toxin" or "poison"), is a sub-microscopic infectious agent that is unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell. Each viral particle, or virion, consists of genetic material, DNA or RNA, within a protective protein coat called a capsid. The capsid shape varies from simple helical and icosahedral (polyhedral or near-spherical) forms, to more complex structures with tails or an envelope. Viruses infect cellular life forms and are grouped into animal, plant and bacterial types, according to the type of host infected.
Biologists debate whether or not viruses are living organisms. Some consider them non-living as they do not meet the criteria of the definition of life. For example, unlike most organisms, viruses do not have cells. However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection. Others have described them as organisms at the edge of life. Viral infections in human and animal hosts usually result in an immune response and disease. Often, a virus is completely eliminated by the immune system. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses, but antiviral drugs have been developed to treat life-threatening infections. Vaccines that produce lifelong immunity can prevent viral infections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
so if a virus can only survive in a host cell, it has to stay small because it would be detrimental to its survival if it were too big for the host cell it needs to survive in.
Art Vandelay
Active Member
I think that is a great explanation. Can you imagine what would happen to life on this planet if a micro-organism with such a rapid rate of mutation could make that type of evolutionary change as it did in the fiction of Star Trek?
It is just one example of how delicately balanced the laws of science need to be in order to support life. As our knowledge of science expands the miracle that life happened on this planet at all becomes more and more obvious.
Even in a nearly infinite universe the idea that this could happen by mere chance without a guiding force and preordained design has some scientist questioning the possibility that all of this came about spontaneously.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
if you wanna talk about ambiogenesis, lets do so. but keep in mind it's not the same as natural selection.
if you read up on the RNA world hypothesis, you'll learn that certain chemicals, compounds, molecules, etc. have attractions to each other and will replicate. conditions had to be just right and *four and a half billion years of mutations and natural selection brought us the abundance of life we have today. complex life doesn't just spontaneously happen, it's a very slow and incremental process in which traits brought on by random mutations are passed on if they are favorable.
*this point on is natural selection.
i'm not an expert in this field and it's easier to understand something than to explain it so i'm sorry i can't get into more depth. whether or not the rna world hypothesis is correct, it is more likely that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one.
if a supernatural creator was responsible ambiogenesis, there is really no good reason why the creator would have to keep its self secret from us and force us to rely on faith rather than reason or logic which it its self has designed us with. why would a god force us to rely on faith, a system which can so easily be exploited? why not just appear?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Well, I've got to ask: what is a "nearly infinite" universe, and exactly where would this "pre-ordained" design be taking place? Infinity is a concept and not a number. Even though the universe we inhabit is huge (and apparently so large that much of it is beyond viewing), it is likely to be a tiny part of a much larger collection of universes. This ensemble must, in turn, occupy a space that is infinite.
An infinite universe suggests a universe in which all things possible become real, no matter how improbable. In other words, the bigger the space of possibility, the greater the chance that something will happen. There is no need to resort to any special design criteria.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
it's to my understanding that the universe has always existed. its current formation (from the last big bang) is around 13.7 billion years old.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
^The trouble is language. Say, for a moment, that Universe means infinity, and that universe (lower case) is the bang. Various physicists define these things by different names: pocket universes for the individual bangs; megaverse, multiverse, and the landscape for all the possible universes such as the one we inhabit. Much of this stuff is, of course, hypothetical.
With respect to an infinite universe, or infinity, as one cosmologist said: the universe is just one of those things that happens from time to time. I think that the same can be said for life. Given an infinite opportunity, eventually something like our world will evolve into existence. There is no need to resort to a supernatural explanation.
With respect to an infinite universe, or infinity, as one cosmologist said: the universe is just one of those things that happens from time to time. I think that the same can be said for life. Given an infinite opportunity, eventually something like our world will evolve into existence. There is no need to resort to a supernatural explanation.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
language is definitely one of those things you have to be careful about. using the wrong word to describe an idea presents a flaw that can be exploited by the other party.
i used to think that pluripotent stem cells were the ones that can turn into any type of cell so when i was debating one time, the person i was talking to said adult stem cells are pluripotent too so there is no need for hESC's. what i actually meant was that hESC's are totipotent stem cells that can turn into any type of cell, which adult stem cells can't do, which is why hESC's are important to research. but the person i was talking to didn't point out that error. instead, my ignorance was exploited. the person knew what i meant but didn't bring it to light because it went against him.
hESC = human embryonic stem cells (for those that don't know)
i used to think that pluripotent stem cells were the ones that can turn into any type of cell so when i was debating one time, the person i was talking to said adult stem cells are pluripotent too so there is no need for hESC's. what i actually meant was that hESC's are totipotent stem cells that can turn into any type of cell, which adult stem cells can't do, which is why hESC's are important to research. but the person i was talking to didn't point out that error. instead, my ignorance was exploited. the person knew what i meant but didn't bring it to light because it went against him.
hESC = human embryonic stem cells (for those that don't know)
Art Vandelay
Active Member
Faith is a necessary component of free will. If God revealed himself in a way that was obvious to even the most ardent athesist than there would be no choice but to worship Him. Without choice we are no more than mindless robots.
MetroMan
Senior Member
^ I disagree. Faith is the key in the lock of this mechanism of control. It's an ingenious concept that has guaranteed the survival of religion for thousands of years.
What better than "if you doubt what is being told to you in this book, you will go to hell" to deter most challengers?
Remove that proverbial lock, take faith out of the equation and you're allowed to think logically without fear of eternal repercussions and most educated people will come to the same conclusion: That this whole concept of believing in a fantasy man in the sky to explain what could not be explained when "God" was first conceived is completely irrelevant today and actually quite sadly humorous.
I was raised in the Catholic school system and was a devout catholic until my mid teens when I managed to take that red pill and go against all I was taught. I laugh at how naïve I was and can today explain every single instance of so called miracles, help from "God", and positive feelings of belonging to a Church.
EDIT: Can we please change or at least add to the title of this thread? I saw this thread here for weeks but never paid it any attention because of the title. Suggestion: Ben Stein's new movie Re: Intelligent Design
What better than "if you doubt what is being told to you in this book, you will go to hell" to deter most challengers?
Remove that proverbial lock, take faith out of the equation and you're allowed to think logically without fear of eternal repercussions and most educated people will come to the same conclusion: That this whole concept of believing in a fantasy man in the sky to explain what could not be explained when "God" was first conceived is completely irrelevant today and actually quite sadly humorous.
I was raised in the Catholic school system and was a devout catholic until my mid teens when I managed to take that red pill and go against all I was taught. I laugh at how naïve I was and can today explain every single instance of so called miracles, help from "God", and positive feelings of belonging to a Church.
EDIT: Can we please change or at least add to the title of this thread? I saw this thread here for weeks but never paid it any attention because of the title. Suggestion: Ben Stein's new movie Re: Intelligent Design
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
logically, based on god's attributes, there can't be free will......
here's a repost of what i said earlier..
most of the time, there is no choice but to worship god. it is something that has to be done in some cases or else you can risk death.
faith is a necessary component of a confidence trick. with faith we are mindless robots that do what we are told out of fear and/or hope, alot of times both at the same time.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
* Ben Stein interviewed by Paul Crouch Jr. on Trinity Broadcasting Network.
wow.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I don't see an argument as to how faith is a component of free will. Just saying so does not make it so.
As to god "revealing" himself, the question is why not do so each and every day? Why all the game-playing? We don't even know for sure if god is a "he" - no such revelation has taken place. And if god is not here, where is he? This would suggest that god is not infinite, and then maybe not the only god.
Resorting to god as an explanation for things begs all sorts of questions about the nature of god and the proof of god - none of which can be accessed or measured because they are all faith-based - they are imagined to exist. Faith is in the mind, so mind always preceded faith; religious faith has never been necessary free thinking. If anything, faith demands the curtailment of free thought. The language and expressions that have been used to define the ideals of freedom or free will are also the product of mind and reasonable agreement between individuals. If anything, with the range of choices we have, we are free (to whatever degree we can define and measure these things), or unfree for the same reasons.
We are survival robots, if you will. We are a product of the natural environment and we are a natural environment.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Trouble ahead for science
By Kenneth R. Miller | May 8, 2008
AMERICAN science is in trouble, and if you wonder why, just go to the movies. Popular culture is gradually turning against science, and Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled," is helping to push it along.
"Intelligent Design," the relabeled, repackaged form of American creationism, has always had a problem. It just can't seem to produce any evidence. To scientists, the reasons for this are obvious. To conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a "phony theory." No data, no science, no experiments, just an attempt to sneak a narrow set of religious views into US classrooms.
Advocates of Intelligent Design needed a story to explain why the idea has been a nonstarter within the scientific community, and Ben Stein has given it to them. The story line is that Intelligent Design advocates are persecuted and suppressed. "Expelled" tells of this terrible campaign against free expression, and mocks the pretensions of the closed-minded scientific elite supposedly behind it.
There are many things wrong with this movie. One example: Viewers are told that Dr. Richard Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution because he edited a paper favorable to Intelligent Design. Wrong.
Sternberg wasn't even employed by the Smithsonian (he had no job to lose), and had resigned as journal editor six months before the paper was published. In fact, the irony is that neither Steinberg nor any of the other people featured as martyrs in "Expelled" lost jobs as a result of their advocacy of Intelligent Design, while many others who supported evolution have. In 2007, Chris Comer, the director of science education for Texas schools, was fired for having done nothing more than forwarding an e-mail announcing a pro-evolution seminar.
The movie also uses interviews with avowed atheists like Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," to argue that scientific establishment is vehemently anti-God. Never mind that 40 percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal God. Stein, avoiding these 50,000 people, tells viewers that "Darwinists" don't allow scientists to even think of God.
Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.
Despite these falsehoods, by far the film's most outlandish misrepresentation is its linkage of Darwin with the Holocaust. A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that. Never mind those belt buckles proclaiming Gott mit uns (God is with us), the toxic anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, the ghettoes and murderous pogroms in Christian Europe centuries before Darwin's birth. No matter. It's all the fault of evolution.
Why is all this nonsense a threat to science? The reason is Stein's libelous conclusion that science is simply evil. In an April 21 interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network, Stein called the Nazi murder of children "horrifying beyond words." Indeed. But what led to such horrors? Stein explained: "that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."
According to Stein, science leads you to "killing people." Not to cures and vaccines, not to a deeper understanding of nature, not to wonders like computers and cellphones, and certainly not to a better life. Nope. Science is murder.
"Expelled" is a shoddy piece of propaganda that props up the failures of Intelligent Design by playing the victim card. It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science. In that sense, the word "expelled" may have a different and more tragic connotation for our country than Stein intended.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...rticles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/
By Kenneth R. Miller | May 8, 2008
AMERICAN science is in trouble, and if you wonder why, just go to the movies. Popular culture is gradually turning against science, and Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled," is helping to push it along.
"Intelligent Design," the relabeled, repackaged form of American creationism, has always had a problem. It just can't seem to produce any evidence. To scientists, the reasons for this are obvious. To conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a "phony theory." No data, no science, no experiments, just an attempt to sneak a narrow set of religious views into US classrooms.
Advocates of Intelligent Design needed a story to explain why the idea has been a nonstarter within the scientific community, and Ben Stein has given it to them. The story line is that Intelligent Design advocates are persecuted and suppressed. "Expelled" tells of this terrible campaign against free expression, and mocks the pretensions of the closed-minded scientific elite supposedly behind it.
There are many things wrong with this movie. One example: Viewers are told that Dr. Richard Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution because he edited a paper favorable to Intelligent Design. Wrong.
Sternberg wasn't even employed by the Smithsonian (he had no job to lose), and had resigned as journal editor six months before the paper was published. In fact, the irony is that neither Steinberg nor any of the other people featured as martyrs in "Expelled" lost jobs as a result of their advocacy of Intelligent Design, while many others who supported evolution have. In 2007, Chris Comer, the director of science education for Texas schools, was fired for having done nothing more than forwarding an e-mail announcing a pro-evolution seminar.
The movie also uses interviews with avowed atheists like Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," to argue that scientific establishment is vehemently anti-God. Never mind that 40 percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal God. Stein, avoiding these 50,000 people, tells viewers that "Darwinists" don't allow scientists to even think of God.
Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.
Despite these falsehoods, by far the film's most outlandish misrepresentation is its linkage of Darwin with the Holocaust. A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that. Never mind those belt buckles proclaiming Gott mit uns (God is with us), the toxic anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, the ghettoes and murderous pogroms in Christian Europe centuries before Darwin's birth. No matter. It's all the fault of evolution.
Why is all this nonsense a threat to science? The reason is Stein's libelous conclusion that science is simply evil. In an April 21 interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network, Stein called the Nazi murder of children "horrifying beyond words." Indeed. But what led to such horrors? Stein explained: "that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."
According to Stein, science leads you to "killing people." Not to cures and vaccines, not to a deeper understanding of nature, not to wonders like computers and cellphones, and certainly not to a better life. Nope. Science is murder.
"Expelled" is a shoddy piece of propaganda that props up the failures of Intelligent Design by playing the victim card. It deceives its audiences, slanders the scientific community, and contributes mightily to a climate of hostility to science itself. Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science. If we actually come to believe that science leads to murder, then we deserve to lose world leadership in science. In that sense, the word "expelled" may have a different and more tragic connotation for our country than Stein intended.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...rticles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/