By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Ben Stein to take on Darwinism on April 18

This thread is still going? Who knew it would be so hard to reconcile religion and sceince.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Around the Network
stof said:
This thread is still going? Who knew it would be so hard to reconcile religion and sceince.

Yeah I'm really suprised it hasnt ended like every other thread having anything to do with beliefs or religion or science: a big group hug at the end and we all go out for a beer.

Ah wait, that never happened :(



Big group hug and sharing beer is the only way to overcome our differences.
As Solomon said - (I know quoting scripture is dangerous) Eat, drink, and be happy.





"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.


ioi + 1

I wanted to respond to this thread last week but I couldn't remember my password offhand and I'm taking 18 units so I'm a little busy. As a geology student I find that most people that looked at science classes as something they just survived in school seem to not remembered anything about science at all. Those that have spent their lives researching and searching for expanations of natural phenomena have their theories referred to as "guesses". I find that discussions about the theory of evolution and the concept of intelligent design suffer from the basic problem that many of the participants are just talking out their ass using their own reasoning and not actually knowing any of the science involved. When someone who does know the science comes in to comment, they are answered by someone who has an opinion and the best answer a Google search for "proof of intelligent design" brings up. Btw, this also happens for those that believe in the theory of evolution but know little of the actual mechanism. So, the arguments go round and round and the result is that the actual science becomes watered down by ill-informed supporters and intelligent design's ideas are given more credit than they deserve. Real science is asked to play on the same level as someone's personal reasoning, hopefully you can see the flaw with that.

Also, as a geology student, if you believe the world is 10,000 years old don't ever take geology because you will only irritate your professor when you ask him how igneous rocks can cool and crystalize in a few thousand years. You will also just look stupid, of course if you believe that, it may not be that far off mark.



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

Around the Network

Here's my take. ID is not an alternative to evolution. The latter is a suggestion of the mechanism, and the former is a suggestion of the cause. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, creationism isn't anywhere near as credible as those two, as it's based on hearsay (mythology), not natural evidence, which even ID can take into account (if done right).



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Hi guys! I’m kind of agnostic about god, so I just thought id ask if any of you guys know anything about the creation of the first life form? I have always wondered about this and as being as we have astrophysicists, geologists and biology students on here I thought someone may have an explanation that may help me. cheers



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

Oh yeah, and i thought id also say that i dont think that offspring of ligers and tions are completely viable, i belive only the female liger or tion are fertile. So technically they are not fertile similarly to a mule.



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

"I just thought id ask if any of you guys know anything about the creation of the first life form? "

==> u already have to answer what is Life, before trying to know when it begins.
We can consider Life is caracterize by 1 main parameter :

AUTO REPLICATION

People think there were some molecules possessing some autoreplicative properties. They think they were RNA molecule that are know to support the genetic code in a lot of species (with DNA of course). Since this genetic code is shared by all the life form, ARN/DNA are considered to have appeared early (firstly) in the evolution.
The problem is that u have to create the 1st molecule before hoping any autoreplicative process. People think that was possible some +3.5 Milliards years ago when environnemental condition may have allowed the spontaneous creation of some of organic molecule such as acide aminés (Miller 1953).

I believe this piece text from wikipedia explains it better. It is very close "conceptually" to what I have learn in shcool and u can change the language :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Note that all is about hypothesis and that experimental datas confirming these hypothesis are laking.



Time to Work !

Yeah ill say that it is lacking:D a membrane bound life cannot reproduce its DNA to make RNA without the use of enzymes.

phospholipids can form bilayers and micelles quite easily alone. This is where the chicken or the egg thing comes into play, I dont understand where transport proteins, transcription factors, DNA polymerases and intra membrane content comes to stabilize the cell, let alone stabilization of DNA to stop degredation.:S

Even if the cell itself were to be alive it wouldnt even have the necessary DNA requirements to to sustain its own reproduction let alone contain the enzymes to commence division.

I guess this is where the god arguement comes into play, I am a fan of procrastination.



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.