Creation Science ...

Actually, maybe i can get to the heart of my issue. At some point, someone must postulate all of the following crap:

* "Life can spring and indeed has sprung spontaneously from chemicals in a process we can't possibly duplicate in an undirected experiment, observe or test for sheer lack of time." (Yes, I understand that they've pieced together proteins in directed experiments, that's truly not the same thing) Sure, you can make observations that are consistent with the idea, but how do you get beyond that? Not a rhetorical question, I hunger for knowledge.

* "Hey, all life on earth has a common ancestor which didn't have a parent but was capable of getting energy, dealing with it's own biproducts and having children but it died without leaving any trace of itself that we can find." Again, you can make observations that are consistent with the idea and build towards a concept that it is possible, but can you reproduce the event? Impossible. Or is it?

* At some point, a creature with n chromosomes that reproduced sexually got it on with another creature with n chromosomes that reproduced sexually and managed to produce viable offspring with n+1 chromosomes. Somehow, a viable mate was there, love was in the air, both survived to mating age and it was rad. If you can explain how that's possible, my entire day will be made (nobody can explain this to me because people don't know jack).

* At some point a creature that reproduced asexually produced a creature that reproduced sexually *and* had the instinct to know not only how to do it but how to be a gentle and sensitive lover. Oh and there was another creature that was female there, and they fell in love, survived to mating age, had 2.3 beautiful children and retired happily at the age of 55. Ok, that last part I threw in for fun, it's not really sciency. Again, if you can point out a mechanism that makes this possible, my day is made.

OK f*ck you, you, you, your'e cool, and f you. sigh... I like posts like this 'cause I like to ponder on things like "where did I come from". The why questions that can't be answered are always interesting.

thanks for the post jason

In response to Josh, sex is one of the biggest question marks in the theory of evolution as it applies to species growing from single-cells over time. However, just like the "missing link," just because we don't know how doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And, if you want the brutal honesty, the first life forms that had sex probably engaged in some sort of primitive rape. Or, and this is even more likely, they probably had eggs in the water that were fertilized outside of the body. Remember: only humans see rape as a bad thing. In actuality, it probably helped push our species to where it is now
...I in no way support rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

just because we don't know how doesn't mean it didn't happen.

---

That's not Science. And it's definitely pretty crappy ground to do a lot of posturing on an internet forum about how other beliefs are retarded and yours are 100% chalk full of win and are absolutely true nevermind the fact that you don't understand them. :)

Here I'm not accusing you of being a jerk Ben. Let me make that clear. On a second reading, that looked like a crappy thing to say like I had a personal bone to pick with you. I don't.

I'm gonna wait for Jason's response, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

In response to Josh, sex is one of the biggest question marks in the theory of evolution as it applies to species growing from single-cells over time. However, just like the "missing link," just because we don't know how doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And, if you want the brutal honesty, the first life forms that had sex probably engaged in some sort of primitive rape. Or, and this is even more likely, they probably had eggs in the water that were fertilized outside of the body. Remember: only humans see rape as a bad thing. In actuality, it probably helped push our species to where it is now
...I in no way support rape.

---

The problem with these ideas is that you are assuming what probably happend. There is no evidence from nature to support anything that you have said supposedly happend in the past. Just sayin' :)

Jason: I'm going to take the time to craft a proper response as I am also trying very hard to keep this a civil discussion not a name-calling contest. You've been civil, I've certainly tried to be (and apologies if I came off as "you're dumb". The implied "you're" isn't YOU personally, it's the ubiquitous "you" we mean in conversation. Just like the "they" in "they always say...") and if I'm going to start something I might as well not half-ass it. It's just that ever since undergrad I've been having this discussion and it's exhausting. It requires a very significant amount of background to appreciate the subtleties of evolutionary theory and getting to common understanding can take a really long time -- especially when you have to write everything, use a number of analogies, summarize experiments that took more than one generation of scientist to even perform, etc, etc. Really, that's the problem with the whole thing. Each side tries to distill its argument down to a six-second sound bite and by then we aren't even speaking the same language much less talking about the same topic. I'll do my best to avoid that. From here on out read everything I write with an excited, happy, conversational tone. That's how it's intended. I wouldn't have kicked my ass double-majoring in this crap if I didn't have a deep abiding love for it! :)

Joshua: In large part, that's it. Those four postulates are Darwinian evolution. That's what all the fuss is about. That said, I'm going to make the same effort for you as I promised Jason and give you a proper response. That means a bit of work so you may have to wait a bit for a complete response, but we'll get there. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

Jason: I'm going to take the time to craft a proper response as I am also trying very hard to keep this a civil discussion not a name-calling contest. You've been civil, I've certainly tried to be (and apologies if I came off as "you're dumb". The implied "you're" isn't YOU personally, it's the ubiquitous "you" we mean in conversation. Just like the "they" in "they always say...") and if I'm going to start something I might as well not half-ass it. It's just that ever since undergrad I've been having this discussion and it's exhausting. It requires a very significant amount of background to appreciate the subtleties of evolutionary theory and getting to common understanding can take a really long time -- especially when you have to write everything, use a number of analogies, summarize experiments that took more than one generation of scientist to even perform, etc, etc. Really, that's the problem with the whole thing. Each side tries to distill its argument down to a six-second sound bite and by then we aren't even speaking the same language much less talking about the same topic. I'll do my best to avoid that. From here on out read everything I write with an excited, happy, conversational tone. That's how it's intended. I wouldn't have kicked my ass double-majoring in this crap if I didn't have a deep abiding love for it! :)

Joshua: In large part, that's it. Those four postulates are Darwinian evolution. That's what all the fuss is about. That said, I'm going to make the same effort for you as I promised Jason and give you a proper response. That means a bit of work so you may have to wait a bit for a complete response, but we'll get there.

---

Totally understand. Some questions are easy to ask and complex to answer. I can be patient, I've spent years trying to find someone who knew more about evolution than me. I appreciate your effort.

I am concerned, because those four postulates seem to add up to a crappy attempt at strong inductive logic with no basis step. The basis step is everything. There are problem points in there like chromosomes, sex, instinct-structure dependencies....and I've always been curious if there were answers to these questions to explain not only how they evolved but how we KNOW they evolved.

And they don't teach you that crap in school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

Jason: I'm going to take the time to craft a proper response as I am also trying very hard to keep this a civil discussion not a name-calling contest. You've been civil, I've certainly tried to be (and apologies if I came off as "you're dumb". The implied "you're" isn't YOU personally, it's the ubiquitous "you" we mean in conversation. Just like the "they" in "they always say...") and if I'm going to start something I might as well not half-ass it. It's just that ever since undergrad I've been having this discussion and it's exhausting. It requires a very significant amount of background to appreciate the subtleties of evolutionary theory and getting to common understanding can take a really long time -- especially when you have to write everything, use a number of analogies, summarize experiments that took more than one generation of scientist to even perform, etc, etc. Really, that's the problem with the whole thing. Each side tries to distill its argument down to a six-second sound bite and by then we aren't even speaking the same language much less talking about the same topic. I'll do my best to avoid that. From here on out read everything I write with an excited, happy, conversational tone. That's how it's intended. I wouldn't have kicked my ass double-majoring in this crap if I didn't have a deep abiding love for it! :)

---

That's cool, no problem. I would be interested to see what you thought of Behe in the video below. He too has studied this stuff for decades as you have and is probably smarter than the two of us put together and he has come to the conclusion after his exhaustive study and research that there had to be a designer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHbDr...layer_embedded

Ok Science buffs. Who knows what I am talking about. I can't find the video, but I saw a video from a super smart scientist guy that talked about how he was close to proving that the world was 6,000 years old and also 4.5 billion years old.
He was relating the dates by earth years and "cosmo" (I can't remember what he called them, but something to do with space) years. He said that because the galaxy was expanding, time happens at a different rate depending on where you are in time.
Or something like that. It was very intriguing and does anyone know what I referring too and can the smart people discuss it.
He was basically saying that the bible's years was being calculated differently than how we do it now but that both are referring to the same amount of time, just using a different form of measurement.