Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3416728 - 11/27/04 05:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Impossible. As was already pointed out, if a mutation is malignant the organism will probably not survive until birth or will only survive for a short time after birth. If a fox is born with only three legs due to a mutation, and that fox dies before it has a change to reproduce (meaning the mutation is LOST), how do you expect anyone to know of it? Fossils are actually EXTREMELY rare if you consider just how many individual organisms have existed in the 4 billion years that life has existed on this planet. The chances of that fox becoming a fossil are slim...and our chances of finding a SPECIFIC fossil, should one exist, are even more slim.

*coughcopoutcough*

Terrible explanation. On one hand, the Theory is staying Nature is touch and go, and Evolution simply drives itself by knowing it's past mistakes. So Evolution is Evolving itself but it's not INTELLIGENT? Wtf?

What you're basically saying is Nature is making a choice without ANY idea what the choices are (because Nature is not intelligent/lacks design), is that correct?

The example you used is not adequate and STILL dodges my question, so I guess I'll spell it out:

How does Nature, if containing no traces of intelligence, design, or consciousness know and choose which species are to be selected for extinction? What is the governing law behind Natural SELECTION?


Dead and gone. Returned to dust in the wind.

No evidence, no proof, that's the Scientific Method. You can't simply pick and choose your choice of application of these rules.

"chemical laws" are not conscious. They are descriptions we have come up with for physical processes.

Yet they are making conscious decisions in the future of a Species? These chemical reactions are obviously aware of what mutations are beneficial and not beneficial for a specific species, and "evolving" accordingly. Where does Nature store all this past information? How do these mutations not re-occur over and over is Nature is evolving and learning from it's mistakes? Only conscious entities learn from mistakes, right?

Still waiting for a decent response to this quandry you got yourselves into........

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416759 - 11/27/04 05:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No offense...but you aren't making a whole lot of sense :smirk:

What you're basically saying is Nature is making a choice without ANY idea what the choices are (because Nature is not intelligent/lacks design), is that correct?

No, actually. That's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to be trying to apply the HUMAN notion of "choice" to the non-conscious physical world.

Nature doesn't "chose" which species live and which go extinct. Species go extinct due to a VASTLY complex string of events which result in too much pressure on the species.

The dinosaurs did not "decide" their time was up and just lay down to die. An asteroid probably impacted the Earth, causing enough upset to the global environment to CAUSE the dinosaurs to go extinct.

Yet they are making conscious decisions in the future of a Species?

No, they aren't.

These chemical reactions are obviously aware of what mutations are beneficial and not beneficial for a specific species, and "evolving" accordingly.

No, they aren't "obviously" aware of anything. Chemicals are not humans. They don't have brains to think with. :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416849 - 11/27/04 05:39 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

How does Nature, if containing no traces of intelligence, design, or consciousness know and choose which species are to be selected for extinction? What is the governing law behind Natural SELECTION?





It doesn't. You first have to show that nature uses a certain critera to "choose" certain species and that there is in fact intervention going on. We have already given our evidence for how different traits and/or mutations cause an organism to thrive or die, resulting in speciation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Catalysis]
    #3416985 - 11/27/04 06:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If nature isn't choosing, why is it called Natural Selection? Why not, Natural Progression?

I suppose I wouldn't make much sense to a class of individuals that don't give any creedence to the idea that there's more than we know going on.

Nobody has explained the laws that GOVERN Natural Selection because there are none. Apparently, this miraculous process happens without any error, and Nature apparently learns from itself (reason why we're not all mutants and also why no recent species have failed due to detrimental 'mutations'), but does so in a manner that has nothing to do with any form of Intelligent energy behind it all. You want to pass things off as "chemical and chemical reactions" but if you've done your own studies enough, Science is now saying those same Chemicals don't really exist unless something is there to make it exist. Nothing is independent anymore. So prey tell, what becomes of Natural Selection when merged with the greater rules and laws of Quantum Mechanics?

So what we have is basically an entire existance based off Nothingness, which developed into Somethingness, carried through the 14.5 Billion Years through laws still unknown, developed into basic life (primordial) which then developed through 'natural selection' into what we have now as a bunch of people arguing over the internet. All this occuring with no Intelligent Design behind it...yet, we're Intelligent, right? We've obviously evolved through Natural Selection into a Species that can fathom the greatest mysteries of existance while all life around them is 'dumb.' We've Evolved into Free Will, yet no other species has done this. We've been able to contemplate our own existance, yet no other species has done this. Natural Selection seemingly just 'stopped' dead in it's tracks once it got to Humans.

So, if Intelligent Life (Humans) could arise out of all these non-intelligent processes, then what's so hard to believe that the reverse cannot happen? How could Intelligence arise from "stupidity" or a complete LACK of intelligence? Isn't this again, something out of nothing? You honestly expect people to believe this idea, rather than a Beginning (creator/design)? That's absurd. I challenge anybody defending this stance to even begin explaining the above listed problems with this belief.

And after all this thinking back and forth, the ultimate irony of this theory you defend so strongly (non-intelligent design that is) doesn't explain one iota of how you are even able to think in such a manner. The larger irony is that the same belief system you hold to (Science alone) can't even explain how thought even occurs.

Interesting.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 06:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417106 - 11/27/04 06:52 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

No it's not. Read a biology book!

I have. I still do, my stance is unchaning.




The bible doesn't count.

If you'd read a book about Natural Selection and biology, you wouldn't be in here embarrassing yourself with statements like:

odds of Existance happening just this way that allowed conscious, intelligent life to form is staggering.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417129 - 11/27/04 06:58 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

this is odd. You seem convinced that every intangible has a personality. This is an interesting way of looking at things, but it makes no sense if we consider that the intangibles are just labels for concepts.

It's called natural selection because the opposite is OUR selection- ie breeding. Call it natural progression if the personality seems more attune to ours, whatever.

Besides which, WHY don't you think we could evolve consciousness or "free will" ? Are you sure that you're conscious, or is the process running your brain just executing? Is it free will if there's only choice in relatively small matters? You can't choose to fly because Aerodynamics has just become your friend and asked if you'd like to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417150 - 11/27/04 07:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Science is now saying those same Chemicals don't really exist unless something is there to make it exist.

Actually...no. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM theory does not say that things "don't really exist" until we observe them...it says that every possibility exists until we make an observation, at which point ONE of the possbilities is "chosen" by the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation is only ONE viewpoint of QM theory. There are others.

"Natural selection" is an extremely complex system. You are right, though, that the word "selection" is a little misleading. It does not mean to intend that there is some consciousness doing the "selecting". Random mutation is probably NOT the driving force behind evolution. An entire species does not all undergo a mutation all at once, either...mutations take MILLIONS of years to create a new species. "Natural selection" is based on environmental pressure, NOT random genetic mutation.

Lets say you have a tree that does quite well in temperate climates. It could exist in southern Canada (for example) for millions of years with very little pressure from the environment. During all those million years, random genetic mutations build up in SOME of the trees. The mutations which do not cause death are passed on to the next generation of trees when the ones WITH the mutation reproduce. In this way, the mutation spreads throughout at least SOME of the tree population. If the mutation is "bad", in that it causes the tree to die, it cannot be passed very efficiently down the generations because the trees WITH the mutation will die too soon to reproduce. For our example, we'll say the mutation is one which causes the leaves to be much thicker, with less fluids in them.

Now along comes an ice-age. Glaciers move south, and temperatures drop. Now the trees which once THRIVED in a temperate climate are faced with conditions in which they can no longer survive AT ALL. Except for the ones with the mutation. Their leaves are thicker, better able to withstand cold temperatures. Less fluid in the leaves means a thicker sap, which is more resistant to freezing. The trees without this mutation all die, but the mutated trees go on living.
In fact, their numbers explode. Where once there were only a few mutated trees among many more "normal" trees, there is now ONLY the few mutated trees and a LOT of room to expand into. They do exactly that. Now we have an extinct species, but also a new species.

Oh, and NO: I am NOT saying there is NO Creator to this Universe. There very well could be. That's not what I'm arguing about, though :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417200 - 11/27/04 07:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

So where are the interm-species and developments?

Alright, you ask a good question here. After all, if evolutionary theory is correct, there should be a continuum of species rather than discrete species in the fossil record. So you're asking where all the transitional fossils that demonstrate a smooth, continuous transition from prior species to current ones are.

That fossils form at all is a minor miracle. Think about what happens to the typical dead animal. First it's torn apart by scavengers, then decomposition sets in which if left unchecked will consume even the bones after a while, next UV exposure bleaches what's left, then rain erodes it further, and the constant churn of soil by plant roots finally removes all traces of the animal's existence. People take advantage of this when they murder someone and dump the body in a forest. Most of the time, the body is never found, even when the police know where to look.

In the ocean, conditions are even more unfavorable for fossil formation.

My point is that for an animal to be preserved in the fossil record it must die in a place where it will be undisturbed for a very long time; couple that with the requirement for very specific and unique conditions and the likelihood that any given animal will fossilize is tiny. That we have fossils at all is testament to the enormous quantity and diversity of species in the history of our planet. Given how unlikely it is for any given fossil to form, it's not surprising that we haven't yet found a continuum of species.

But we're making progress. Every year more and more transitional fossils are found to fill in the gaps. One of the most famous, Archaeopteryx, is very strong evidence supporting the idea that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. Comparative anatomy shows it has many of the skeletal features of extinct terrasaurs, but the Swiss cheese internal bone structure which makes modern bird skeletons so strong and lightweight. More amazing is that Archaeopteryx had both teeth AND feathers.

Even with the discovery of Archaeopteryx there are still gaps in the fossil record, but then more recently a team of scientists working in the Spanish Pyrenees uncovered the fossilized remains of a bird hatchling dating to the Lower Cretaceous, approximately 130 million years ago. The researchers believe the bird hatchling falls between the very early Archaeopteryx (approximately 150 million years old) and the more modern fossil birds Hersperonis and Ichthyornis, both of which are ~85 million years old.

Here's another example. One of the things I do for fun when I'm not reading the Shroomery is scuba diving in caves. This is a great place to see evolution at work. Inside these caves are such critters as catfish and crayfish (like little lobsters). These animals are albino (they have no pigmentation), and they're blind (they have eyes, but they're covered over by skin and scales). This is because they were once species living outside, but over time found a niche inside the perpetual darkness of the caves where neither eyes nor pigmentation were of any benefit. The fossil record suggests that they slowly evolved away eyes and pigments and gained other traits more useful for living in the dark.

Here's a picture of one I found while diving in a cave in north central Florida recently:



Notice the lack of eyes and the total lack of pigmentation. Non-cave dwelling crayfish are typically brownish like lobsters... and they have eyes.

The evolutionary relatives of these guys can be found in the fossil record outside the caves. Two different species, very similar except that one has eyes and pigmentation, the other doesn't as a result of selective pressures because eyes, if they're of no use, are susceptible to infection and other pathologies. Because eyes in a cave have no benefits and numerous disadvantages, evolutionary pressures removed them.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417289 - 11/27/04 07:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But we forget it is a THEORY, it is not fact.

You don't know what a theory is.

The Atomic Theory is JUST a theory too. After all, nobody has ever seen an atom, and all we know about atoms comes from theories.

But, the Atomic Theory incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; the Atomic Theory runs the nuclear power plant 100 miles south of me which provides electricity to power my home; the Atomic Theory is used every day in hospitals around the world by radiation oncologist to treat cancer; the Atomic Theory guides the development of semiconductor lasers that are right now carrying this message to your monitor.

You don't even know what a theory is, yet you come here using your non-knowledge of it to critique Evolutionary Theory.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you've read a biology book.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 11:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417294 - 11/27/04 07:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I suppose it must be clarified again...

I am not opposing the processes of Natural Selection Or Evolution. I am not opposing their existance. That entire post Diploid, is completely moot because you're not even on the same page.

I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot. Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with. As the quote I posted above stated...they are only opposing until you combine the two, and then they are much more powerful and convincing.

And the only reason I'm aruging this stance is due to the book that Dipolid posted. Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise because even during my Atheistic period, I still was never opposed to the idea of an Intelligent Designer behind all Creation, never will be. Where you all see 'chance' and Nature 'just being', I see evidence for Design and Intelligent Design at every single angle. I'll never belive Life can simply just 'happen' and that Something came from Nothing. It defies all the same 'logic' you all so desperately cling to in a world and existance that makes no logical sense to anybody.

I apologize for the confusion.

On a final note, Creationist does not mean Christian, as Diploid seems to confuse. Where did I ever say that I read the Bible or that I'm even Christian for that matter? Exactly, I didn't. Simply someone trying to put words in other peoples mouths (or posts in this case) to further a faltering and shaky argument.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417311 - 11/27/04 07:49 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
But we forget it is a THEORY, it is not fact.

You don't know what a theory is.

The Atomic Theory it's JUST a theory, after all, nobody has ever seen an atom and all we know about atoms comes from theories.

But, the Atomic Theory incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; the Atomic Theory runs the nuclear power plant 100 miles south of me which provides electricity to power my home; the Atomic Theory is used every day in hospitals around the world by radiation oncologist to treat cancer; the Atomic Theory guides the development of semiconductor lasers that are right now carrying this message to your monitor.

You don't even know what a theory is, yet you come here using your non-knowledge of it to critique Evolutionary Theory.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you've read a biology book.




Still a Theory, still not fact. You can have 1000 pieces of Evidence to support a Theory, but you only need 1 piece of contradictory evidence to destroy it.

Besides, what's an Atom, besides a propable wave function that has certain probalities for existing in certain probable regions? Does it have shape, color? Do they look exactly like what I would read in my Biology book? No, they are human concepts and pictures put on something we haven't even begun to understand. If you believe everything your Biology book is telling you to a T, then you're no better than a Bible Thumper who quotes a Psalm for every argument. If you rely on one source of information to get your world view, I don't care to debate with you, I pity you.

Think for yourself, break the mold, and above all, stop being stupid.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417328 - 11/27/04 07:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Does it have shape

Yes, actually. They can measure individual atoms these days with atomic force microscopy.

color?

Also yes, in the sense that anything has "color". Photons hitting an atom can cause electrons to jump into higher energy states. When the elctrons fall back to their ground state they release another photon of specific frequency. This is the reason for all color. You are just seeing the color of billions and billions of atoms combined :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3417345 - 11/27/04 07:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Color you're right on...kind of. That doesn't mean an Atom has an inherent color as say a piece of Gold would. Not as a 'biology book' would show.

I would love a picture of these individual atoms if you could find one. Doubtful it looks like this...


Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 07:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417356 - 11/27/04 08:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot.

Why not?

Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with.

All you can say about the Big Bang is that it can't be explained at the moment. If that explanation eventually comes in the form of God, alright, if it comes in the form of an advance in String Theory, alright too.

Saying that the Big Bang can't be explained without inserting $DIETY is like primitive peoples saying that condensed water vapor in the form of rain cannot be explained without God's Tears, which is how some people use to explain rain.

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise

This explains it all. Instead of an open mind, you've closed it and rigidly hold to your position, wrong or right. This is dogma.

Think for yourself, break the mold, and above all, stop being stupid.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/27/04 10:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417374 - 11/27/04 08:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Ya, but we're way past that part of human history and STILL no better explanation than "oh...it just kinda happened." Blah.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417388 - 11/27/04 08:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot.

Why not?

Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with.

All you can say about the Big Bang is that it can't be explained at the moment. If that explanation eventually comes in the form of God, alright, if it comes in the form of an advance in String Theory, alright too.

Saying that the Big Bang can't be explained without inserting $DIETY is like primitive peoples saying that condensed water vapor in the form of rain cannot be explained without God's Tears, which is how some people used to explain rain.

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise

This explains it all. Instead of an open mind, you've closed it and rigidly hold to your position, wrong or right. This is dogma.





I've been on the opposite side already. Why would I switch back? Why would I deny all my experiences?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417394 - 11/27/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Hehe... I think you're a pro-science regular here posing as a nut. You're too whacky to be real.

:lol:

You had me going there for a bit.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417415 - 11/27/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I've always been pro-science, I still am.

The best part is you think Science goes against the existance any kind of Deity. And that's just ignorant. :/

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 08:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417455 - 11/27/04 08:32 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

That doesn't mean an Atom has an inherent color as say a piece of Gold would.

A piece of gold doesn't have "inherent" color, either. "Color" isn't inherent to anything...it's just our way of explaining the way different wavelengths of light "look" to us. Different wavelengths are reflected by different materials, giving them different colors.

Doubtful it looks like this...

No, of course not. I never said it did, just that atoms do have shape to them. Contrary to what you stated.

Here is a picture of the surface of a piece of graphite, taken using a scanning tunneling microscope. Each of those peaks is an individual atom (the color is artificial, of course):


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM Happy Birthday!
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417456 - 11/27/04 08:33 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The best part is you think Science goes against the existance any kind of Deity.

As far as I've read, you're the only one who keeps saying that in this thread. :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )
Divided_Sky 4,988 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )
angryshroom 2,497 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays
* Jesus wasn't a scientist - the bible in context gluke bastid 1,086 15 05/10/06 12:15 PM
by Silversoul
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,387 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Is evolution still being debated???
( 1 2 all )
GoBlue! 4,312 34 11/29/02 08:14 AM
by Adamist
* The new galaxy scientists discovered
( 1 2 3 all )
2Experimental 4,767 48 02/19/04 09:48 AM
by fireworks_god
* Scientist's Research Debunked LunarEclipse 2,260 18 12/31/05 03:03 PM
by MushmanTheManic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
16,427 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 34 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.