Thread: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

Originally Posted by Syme

When you're trying to argue a point, let's have a bit less "Lol hey guys im on the internet" and a bit more "actually addressing the issue".

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

It turns out I was wrong, and I'm cool with that. I mean, I knew about Robertson, but I just hadn't made the connection.

I'll give you that, you understand it to a greater degree than I thought you would, but it just gets so old listening to liberal arts majors like Gwahir, Sycld, and simon go on and on about shit they've never bothered to do anything but circle jerk about.

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.



Also, I didn't realize saying, "Shit, I'm wrong" counted as trying to "squirm" my way out of being wrong.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

An organism with n chromosomes cannot procreate with an organism with n + x number of chromosomes.
You can only fit so much new information on a single chromosome before it would be too much, and too prone to malfunction.


Now, I agree natural selection is proven, etc... but where in time in the development of new species, and how praytell, is the new chromosome formed?


The probability of a servicable new species of organism (A) randomly being selected for is already slim, correct?

Add to that that another organism(B) must contain a relatively similar "trait" that has to have resulted in the same number as chromosomes as the original, and the probabilities become ridiculously small.




Think of it this way:


Chromosomes are like lego blocks.


The parents each contribute n number of blocks.

If one parent somehow aquires a new trait, which results in n+1 number of chromosomes, as opposed to the species' current n, then it the blocks won't fit, and a viable offspring is highly unlikely.

get it?

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"

Originally Posted by bacon ops

"Can't" as in 5 trillion monkeys pounding on typewriters can't write Romeo and Juliet.

So your contention is that new chromosomes found in new species are formed by screw ups in Anaphase?

EDIT: also, meiosis is the word you meant to use.

DOUBLE EDIT: SHIT, I forgot about Robertson.

Hmm, I guess I was wrong.

The point I'm making is that I observed a problem with it, and created a hypothesis on my own.

I didn't google my facts and then defend them like a religious zealout on the internet.

Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

I'm not scared to admit I was wrong though, because it was a genuine problem that apparently has a solution, albeit still an iffy one. (it's too easy to say A+N is gonna be fine when in reality there's probably 50,000 Kbase pairs in each letter.)

HOWEVER,
I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

Wish I had a class with that guy.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.


EDIT: Oh, so this was your "hypothesis":

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Dude, my hypothesis was that an organism bearing n chromosomes originated at the same time as the organism with n+1 chromosomes. Any idiot can see that. Whether they were planted here by aliens, formed seperately out of proteins and fireworks, I didn't specify.

No you didn't. What you said was that it's "impossible" for an an organism with n chromosomes to evolve from an organism with m chromosomes.

Here's the thing; I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

Again, it's good that you admitted you're wrong. I'm just so surprised that you think you're better for

And everything you know you're "parroting" from lectures and textbooks. See we can play this stupid, immature game too.

Originally Posted by sycld

(Okay, I thought you were just here to act as a foil to show how we mere lay people shouldn't even think about science, as none of us can understand anything anyway, but now I realize you're a supporter of creationism.)

And an intelligent design proponen's (i.e. your) answer to this is "It's too hard to hard to understand, so it must be impossible, and thus I'm going to simply throw away all the strong evidence that supports evolution and simply say God dun it according to genesis because it's easier for me to believe?"



Now what the fuck are you talking about?

You're proud of yourself for asking a question you didn't know the answer to and standing up to someone who wasn't as ignorant as you are about what scientists have discovered? What "religious zealotry" are you talking about? He knew or found the answer and explained it to you.

And what the fuck hypothesis are you fucking talking about here? I didn't read a hypothesis, just a proud declamation of ignorance.

It's good that you admitted you were wrong. It's moronic that you then say that you're the better one here for lacking knowledge.

Jesus Christ. That's a crutch even though there's empirical evidence that these processes did occur over huge periods of times and over millions of generations?

Also, yes, these exceedingly rare ridiculously improbably events did occur and are what drove speciation.

The simple truth is that you don't, in actuality, understand the processes at work here to a fraction of the degree that I do.

Sure, it's easy to toss everyone aside and say that they're a stupid "creationist"

The truth is that everyone who supports whatever you want to call intelligent design isn't a fundamentalist christian, and doesn't dismiss everything about evolution.

That's what science is about, dude: asking questions.
It isn't about watching youtube and feeling smug.


I'm saying you're the religious zealout.

You have blind faith in evolution.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

It's not a "crutch" if it's true. Do you not understand that the probability of an event occurring is intrinsically linked to the number of opportunities it has to occur? If someone has a one-in-a-million probability of occurring, it's only "ridiculously improbable" if you give it significantly less than a million chances. If you give it a million chances, then "one-in-a-million" is not that improbable at all. And if you give it a billion chances, then it's damned improbable that it won't occur. It's a pretty simple concept.

Evolutionary events that have a 1-in-X chance of occurring are ridiculously improbable in any given single case, but that does NOT mean they are ridiculously improbable in the population as a whole, over the evolutionary timescale as a whole.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Right, so I guess that would be a clue to a reasonable person not to make up arbitary claims about that probability, like you did.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.

You do not even know what you're talking about. Just like you made stupid and baseless presumptions about the likelihood of parents with a chromosomal mismatch reproducing, you are now making stupid and baseless presumptions about other people's interest in this issue.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

But you obviously didn't bother to check and make sure your crackpot theory was correct or even grounded in reality before you stormed into this thread and started acting like you knew what you were talking about. Forming your own hypotheses and ideas is great; but you need to make sure they aren't totally wrong before you try to argue with other people over them.

It's really ridiculous that you dreamed up your own theory, never bothered to verify it, and tried to use it in an argument as if it were fact... and now you are trying to act like you are somehow superior to people who actually tracked down the facts and educated themselves before opening their mouths, because those people may have used the internet to do so. It's also ridiculous how you think that if someone gleaned information from words displayed on a screen, that information is somehow inferior to the information that you gleaned from words written on paper... even if they were right and you were wrong. Newsflash: The veracity of facts doesn't depend on whether they were learned from an electronic medium or a printed medium.

Originally Posted by Syme

It's not a "crutch" if it's true. Do you not understand that the probability of an event occurring is intrinsically linked to the number of opportunities it has to occur? If someone has a one-in-a-million probability of occurring, it's only "ridiculously improbable" if you give it significantly less than a million chances. If you give it a million chances, then "one-in-a-million" is not that improbable at all. And if you give it a billion chances, then it's damned improbable that it won't occur. It's a pretty simple concept.

Evolutionary events that have a 1-in-X chance of occurring are ridiculously improbable in any given single case, but that does NOT mean they are ridiculously improbable in the population as a whole, over the evolutionary timescale as a whole.



Right, so I guess that would be a clue to a reasonable person not to make up arbitary claims about that probability, like you did.



You do not even know what you're talking about. Just like you made stupid and baseless presumptions about the likelihood of parents with a chromosomal mismatch reproducing, you are now making stupid and baseless presumptions about other people's interest in this issue.



But you obviously didn't bother to check and make sure your crackpot theory was correct or even grounded in reality before you stormed into this thread and started acting like you knew what you were talking about. Forming your own hypotheses and ideas is great; but you need to make sure they aren't totally wrong before you try to argue with other people over them.

It's really ridiculous that you dreamed up your own theory, never bothered to verify it, and tried to use it in an argument as if it were fact... and now you are trying to act like you are somehow superior to people who actually tracked down the facts and educated themselves before opening their mouths, because those people may have used the internet to do so. It's also ridiculous how you think that if someone gleaned information from words displayed on a screen, that information is somehow inferior to the information that you gleaned from words written on paper... even if they were right and you were wrong. Newsflash: The veracity of facts doesn't depend on whether they were learned from an electronic medium or a printed medium.

And let me repeat my question: What WAS your theory, exactly? I haven't seen you present a hypothesis ITT about the origin of new chromosomes. Again, it seems like the closest you've come is asking "Who's to say God didn't do it?"

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

You can say it's not true, but it is.
You can't learn kung fu from Rush Hour, and you can't learn Genetics on the internet.
You can't back someone into a corner by saying, "Where's your dissertation on your new hypothesis" either. Oh wait, yes you can.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

The simple truth is that you don't, in actuality, understand the processes at work here to a fraction of the degree that I do.

Sure, it's easy to toss everyone aside and say that they're a stupid "creationist"

The thing is, everyone who supports whatever you want to call it isn't a fundamentalist christian, and doesn't dismiss everything about evolution.

That's what science is about, dude: asking questions.
It isn't about watching youtube and feeling smug.


I'm saying you're the religious zealout.

You have blind faith in evolution.

Well do you have "blind faith" in quantum mechanics, in gravity, in relativity?

You have to question ALL of these theories and listen to the ALL the alternatives. Otherwise, you have "blind faith" too.

And why is it only evolution vs. creationism? Why don't we consider the other dozens and dozens of other alternative theories out there too?


What attitude should I have towards evolution? Why the hell should I believe in intelligent design being at all possible when the ONLY ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN SUPPORT OF ID ARE ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION?

That's the thing: there is no positive empirical evidence that supports ID. None.

You're right about one thing here: everyone who supports creationism isn't a fundamentalist Christian. They are also Muslims, Jews, etc. They all have an agenda whose origins are from a religious viewpoint and not a scientific one.

So here's why I believe in evolution:

1) I might not have a huge knowledge of biology, but I have an intimate knowledge of how science, in general, works.

2) Evolution is supported by the vast majority of biologists. It is the one theory that can explain empirical evidence, the fossil record, etc.

3) Yes, evolution may very well be wrong. But their is not a single theory out there that experts tell us can explain empirical evidence or give a coherent narrative in light of empirical evidence.

4) It's patently obvious that most, if not all, of the arguments put forth by creationists are THOSE THAT REFUTE EVOLUTION, not arguments that show how creationism fits empirical evidence better than evolution.



Finally, I don't give a shit that you know more than I do. The fact is that everything you know was in classroom instruction. So why can't I say that your education in biology wasn't merely indoctrination?

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

...and you can't learn Genetics on the internet...

Just for the record, I didn't use Google to discover why you were wrong; I knew why you were wrong as soon as I read your post, because I have a working knowledge of how evolution works. What I used Google for was to find a website that would explain the facts in a way that everyone reading the thread could understand, since providing links to other websites is obviously the only practical way to show other people information in an online discussion. It seems like your automatic assumption about everyone else is that they couldn't possibly know anything about a scientific topic, and if they do demonstrate any knowledge of a scientific topic, then it must be because they Googled it 30 seconds earlier and just parroted what they found. This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person in the universe who has ever taken a class or read a book. Every other person besides yourself does not necessarily get 100% of their knowledge from Google on an as-needed basis. My degree isn't scientific, but I do have a strong interest in science, and I read a lot. Consequently, I have some scientific knowledge that wasn't gained via a Google search made for the express purpose of arguing with Intelligent Design advocates on the internet.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Dieses ist die Video Vault, korrekt?

NEIN...

DIES

IST

SPARTA

Originally Posted by bacon ops

So you admit you're a fuckface with no real understanding of what we're arguing about, right?

I understand why I'm wrong in this instance.

If you were proven to be wrong, you'd have no idea why.

Yeah, fuck those assholes who accept well-supported scientific theories without having a degree in the relevant field! Only a physicist has any right to accept or defend the theory of gravity! Only an astronomer has any right to accept or defend the Big Bang theory! Only an epidemiologist has any right to accept or defend the germ theory of disease!

Sure, if sycld dreamed up his own personal biological theories and then was proven wrong, he might not be able to understand why, if he wasn't well-educated in the appropriate field. But he's in no danger of being put in that situation. Know why? Because he DOESN'T dream up his own personal unsupported theories; instead he goes with what the actual scientific community has learned. As long as he chooses to invest his credulity in the scientifically supported ideas, he's not really in much danger of being proven wrong in the first place.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

So you admit you're a fuckface with no real understanding of what we're arguing about, right?

I understand why I'm wrong in this instance.

If you were proven to be wrong, you'd have no idea why.

I'm not an idiot; if something I said were wrong, and I were given an explanation as to why I'm wrong, I would accept it. We're speaking about a hypothetical here that hasn't happened.

And thanks for completely ignoring what I said and not addressing a single point of what I said. You're simply impossible to talk to. I have an understanding about what we're talking about even if it is not as deep as some people's understanding of it.

Also, I think that I can be pretty certain that you don't question most of things you're taught with the same vigor as you question evolution. I wouldn't be surprised ifyou're going to say "oh, but I do," but I know that's not true.

I'm going to say this one more time. I recognize that not everything is understood about evolution. Not everything is understood about any field of science. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Finally, you never said what was wrong about the video. Its argument is correct, and it has to start at such an elementary level because the vast, vast majority of creationism supporters don't understand science. I don't understand how you can say all these things about us, when almost all the people in the creationism camp are not experts or scientists themselves who aren't qualified to say the things they do.


You're not saying a damn thing except that we're all a bunch of ignorant idiots and that we should just believe what you're saying, some bachelors student in biology, that evolution as the VAST majority of researchers embrace, really can't explain all the empirical evidence. I'm not going to make that "leap of faith."

Guys, religion is based on faith and science is based on what we can figure out. Religion might be right and we won't no for sure until we die. Science might be right and we won't know for sure until we die. Some god may have set things up the way they are so that we could figure out what we've figured out and then have to decide whether we trust in our faith or in what we can figure out, or there may be no god and science could be 100% correct (in spite of the way that there is technically no way to disprove a god).

Arguing about it is stupid. People will believe what they want to believe, and then when we die we will either find out who was right or we won't find anything.

EDIT: Wait, I didn't read all of the thread and assumed this was the age-old science v. religion argument. Is someone actually trying to say that evolution didn't happen? That is just silly, no matter what you believe.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Some god may have set things up the way they are so that we could figure out what we've figured out and then have to decide whether we trust in our faith or in what we can figure out, or there may be no god and science could be 100% correct (in spite of the way that there is technically no way to disprove a god).

And here we go again with the same false dichotomy that many people on both sides are trapped in:

Evolution can only be true if there is no god, and if a god exists then creationism has to be true.

Of course, it couldn't be the case that a person can believe in Christianity and still support science. No, of course not. Even though the idea of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis stretches back to the earliest Fathers of the Church, whose teachings all Christians recognize (Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike, among others). Even though the leadership of the largest sect of Christianity in the world, Catholicism, has accepted evolution as both not out of line with faith in God and as probably true.

Despite all this, yes, we just have to keep the debate confined to only these two viewpoints.

I am a perfect example of both playing in exquisite harmony.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Religion and science are incompatible. When they coexist, one inevitably suffers (and it's science).

Not only is this false, it is also counter-productive. Fear of science is harmful to society and inhibits its progress, and by painting a pro-science attitude as essentially atheistic, you are doing nothing more than discouraging people from studying it and encouraging paranoid fear about it. I guess you have no idea what it's like to be a person of faith (as I do), so I suppose this is something you can't understand.

You can fight against religion all you want, but by dragging evolution into this conflict, you're only making the defense of science unnecessarily harder for those of us that are trying to advance it.

EDIT:
Oh wait, you made an edit:

Originally Posted by gwahir

When they seem to coexist witohut either losing anything, they're not really coexisting but living in completely separate spheres.

So what's your fucking point here? Why can't they exist in separate spheres?

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

I am a perfect example of both playing in exquisite harmony.

You're some fucking New Age BS semi-Buddhist dealy, so you don't count.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Well, that isn't coexisting...

Well, they can coexist in the sense of coexisting in the same people and in the same society. That is all I care about.

Originally Posted by gwahir

You don't care that they are contradictory?

Jesus Christ. That was my point. They are different, but not contradictory. It's only atheists that make it seem like evolution fundamentally contradicts a belief in god or Christianity and theists that support creationism that make them seem contradictory.

That's like saying that jackhammering and religion aren't compatible and thus must be contradictory.

Move this thread to AI

You guys misinterpreted what I was saying. Also, I agree with sycld. Science and creationism aren't necessarily contradictory, and they can certainly coexist.

Also, the religious problems in the world, when thoroughly examine, don't have much to do with religion at all.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

You guys misinterpreted what I was saying. Also, I agree with sycld. Science and creationism aren't necessarily contradictory, and they can certainly coexist.

Uhh. I guess that would depend on what you mean by "contradictory" and "coexist". Creationism is certainly incompatible with scientific principles on a certain level.

Originally Posted by gwahir

RELIGION and SCIENCE are contradictory. Not because they teach different things, but because religion is, by nature, unscientific.

This is correct. Science is the acquisition of knowledge though empirical observation of phenomena. Religion, ipso facto, involves a claim to knowledge that wasn't acquired scientifically.