Should Schools Teach "Intelligent Falling"?

Evolution is not science. Evolution is a religion. What scientific marvels has evolution gotten us?

Science helps us understand our world and make it work for us. Evolution makes up stories about where we came from. Science doesn't need to waste it's time on made up stories about the evolution from birds to reptiles or whatever to fully understand the biology of both as independent creatures.

You don't need to believe in fairy tales to understand how technology works. What technological advances has evolution gotten us? Zero. We could stop peddling that nonsense tomorrow and nothing would change. The Bible has no issue with observable, testable, repeatable science. Evolution is not science. Science has to be observed, testable and repeatable. Isn't that why miracles are rejected by science? They can't be repeated for testing purposes and there's no video. Yet "science" refuses to apply that same standard to evolution.

Science has yet to create life from non-life. They have stories and theories about how it could happen but it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that science will ever create life from lifeless elements.

Until that happens, evolution is a religion. It's faith that non-life could suddenly come to life just by chance. Science hasn't even observed anything that could make it even remotely plausible. Life dies. Dead doesn't come back to life.

 

now I got it! this is not a person. It's an algorithm implemented by DP to make the threads last longer. Good piece of code, but not perfect yet as this text above does not look like written by a thinking person

 

I think it's well said, and makes quite a bit of sense to me.

 

OK, but you can't deny the society you live in does have a significant influence too on the reward you get for your work. That alone gives society the right to claim a part of what you earn for public use

the people living on the same street or neighbourhood if you organise yourselfs, the village, city, county, state, country, group of countries that decide they're going to do stuff together. Basicly it's everyone with a social contract between them

No, I'm not ok with that but it's not much of a problem either. These things tend to balance themselfs. If you want to live from somebody else's work you have to make sure you don't "over-milk" them otherwise they might join you and soon you won't have who to milk. It happened in Romania in the early 90s. The taxes were too high for businesses so people simply said "fuck it, it's not worth the trouble" and closed their businesses. The result was lower taxes.

It's also nice to have a safety net in case you fuck up.
The whole social parasites thing isn't even such a big problem. Most people don't want to be beggers, they want to work for the satisfaction work brings you

I also wouldn't mind having public money used to educate your kids no matter if you pay for it or even if you have a job or not. Education for your kids results in a bigger chance they will end up as successful people (maybe they're the next einstens, picassos or mozarts) instead of the guy robbing me, so it's worth the investment.

I'd also want to ask you if you don't believe in society and social contracts should you just be able to buy yourself a piece of land and form your own independent state there?

 

Evolutionary theory is almost entirely responsible for virus treatments. You know, Those little injections that stop you dying. You are welcome.
But even if that wasn't true... So what? That doesn't mean evolution is any less true and it doesn't mean we have any less evidence supporting it.

You seem to know so little about evolution it surprises me that you feel entitled to hold an opinion on it's validity.

 

So you have a rebuttal to prove that the same standards applied to miracles are also applied to all aspects of evolution?

Didn't think so.

So you have proof that science is able to create life from non-life?

Didn't think so.

So what exactly is your proof that evolution is anything more than science fiction?

 

Scientists have created nucleotides and got them to form in to poly-nucleotides, The building blocks of DNA, Simply by recreating primordial earth conditions in a lab - It's easy. Next year they plan to create an entirely synthetic DNA string and insert it into an empty cell and it will create something which is deemed "alive". Though it would more than likely be a bacterium it would qualify as an organism, created using 100% manufactured DNA.

But then, Your ludicrous point doesn't need a rebuttal anymore than the claim that "scientists haven't created mount Everest yet, So that means it doesn't exist" would.

It is becoming apparent that your goal here is to make the most infantile, unintelligent points that you can. probably because you know that your intellect and knowledge regarding the subject doesn't equip you with the capacity to have a grown up discussion so instead you attempt to reduce the discussion to absolute absurdity.

I mean, Seriously, look at the points you are making. You should be ashamed.
Out of interest, How old are you?

You have been given proof, You simply refuse to acknowledge it. I wouldn't mind if you refute the proof, but to refute it you would have to have at least a basic grasp of the concepts being presented. So instead, Given the state of your "education", You chose to simply ignore that evidence has been presented and use this dishonest tactic as an excuse to ask the same infantile question over and over again.

 

juts in case anybody is interested in learning something about what evolution is and what evidences there are here is a link to a new book published by national Academies. It's not too long and it's not technical so don't be afraid.

You can log in with your email and download the pdf for free.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

 

Evolution requires that life came from non-life. That's what evolution is. And there's nothing in science to suggest it's even plausible. Just wild speculations.

That has nothing to do with life coming from non-life. Ignoring the fact they havn't even done it yet. You just assume this little experiment will work.

That has to do with modifying existing life (the cell). They're going to replace the existing nucleus in a living cell and see what happens.

I heard about that study. It was debunked. It was non-testable and non-repeatable. Right up there with the kind of studies that prove perpetual motion. But let's humor you and pretend it really happened:

DNA, as you so kindly pointed out, requires a living cell to be useful. It's not alive on it's own. It's like computer code that living cells use to function. DNA cannot come to life on its own.

What repeatable and testable experient has created a living cell out of non-life?

http://audubonmagazine.org/features0205/thylacine.html

Since dead is dead and science is no closer to finding the secret to life, this attempt at a full nucleus replacement of a living cell is the best they can do to get closer to resurrecting extinct animals with just their DNA. Because right now, it's not possible because DNA is computer code for specific computers. You can't just throw DNA in any ol cell and expect it to work. That's like trying to install Intel machine code on a PowerPC.

The real issue is not DNA, that's easy to find and assemble any way you want. The trouble is the RNA which has three components that must work in agreement to interpret the DNA. So if science wants to create custom DNA they're going to either have to make it compatible with existing RNA (what pretty much defines a species) or learn to create their own custom RNA.

Just because Scientists havn't found God yet doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

I love these double standards you keep throwing out.

And actually, a lot of Scientists have found God.

 

you should at least know what evolution claims before talking about it. Evolution doesn't deal with how life appeared. Evolution states that organism suffer minor changes over time usually as an adaptation to some changes in their environment thus resulting in completely different organisms over loooooooong periods of time

 

You can pretend it doesn't but it must. You can't just go back to a single cell and stop and pretend you've proven your theory.

Evolution is trying to make God irrelavent. And if you want to make God irrelavent you're going to have to explain where that cell came from and how it came to life. The need for life to have come from a single cell is predicated on the idea that God doesn't exist. Otherwise you only need to go back to the garden and you can explain where everything we have today came from.

There is no proof everything evolved from a single cell. It only "must have worked that way because God doesn't exist."

Which is really the whole heart of the evolution religion.

Which, has never even been shown possible. And we're back to the double standard. You'll accept that without visible proof but you won't accept the existence of God without visible proof.

Bacteria has had trillions and trillions of generations with all sorts of mutations and it's still just bacteria.

Adaptation is a not sufficient to prove evolution unless you have faith. Thereby making it a religion, not science.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. it's the origin of the species, Not of life.

An organism will be created using synthetic DNA. An organism that has never existed before will be created, By scientists, In a lab.

Well done on spectacularly failing to understand the point. I was using your logic of if scientists can;t do it it must be untrue to infer that mount Everest can't exist because scientists haven't replicated it.

 

That's intelligent design. Not evolution.

Well if you're going to argue that God doesn't exist then you're going to have to deal with the origin of life. And if you can't create life from non-life then you can't rule out God and if you can't rule out God then you don't need the religion that everything evolved from a single cell.

You should understand my logic before resonding to it. I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they havn't. And it requires faith to believe they even can. Again, that's religion. Not science.

In the Middle Ages people believed in spontanious life.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

Whoops. Not only did that experiment you mentioned not produce life, it produced acids that could never be used in life.

 

evolution doesn't say wether everything came from a single cell or not. It doesn't say where life originates from. It doesn't say how life started. It doesn't say wether life was created by a supranatural being or not

It only sais that organism change over long periods of time. THAT'S ALL.

yeah, but it's a different bacteria.

adaptation:

evolution:

if an organism changes it's traits (adapted) it has evolved (changed compared to its predecessors). It's really as simple as that

 

I didn't say it was evolution. try to keep up or i will have to make you sit at the back of the class.

Evolution still has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

Not really. I was hoping to get a factual answer.

The correct response would have been, "The Churches".

Why does charity not exist in your world without absolute government control? Are we full circle, back to the idea that only government can provide charity, not private citizens or community groups?

Btw, if someone is disabled, and can afford a house, but not insurance or basic household protection services, they should probably rent.

The (sic) "society" is not responsible for carrying people who take on more responsibility than they can handle, or more debt than they can repay, or more property than they can manage. If the people who do right, always have to bail out the people who do wrong, what sort of system is that?

A public kitty is fine if it is voluntarily funded. But you have no right to confiscate my property when you desire something you cannot or will not pay for yourself. Agreed?

A common defense might be something the government should provide, but there is also no reason to believe that an armed populace would be able to form militia on demand.

Why, you looking for a free ride back home? Just kidding.

Why should the government pay for space exploration with taxpayer money? There is no reason this shouldn't be funded privately. Unless you can think of a reason why you should confiscate my property to fund a space program...

Actually, your (sic) "society" is absolutely horrific and immoral. If one person out of 4 works, and the other 3 vote to take the money the one person earned and spend it on themselves, that's your system. It's evil.

There are no individuals. People are not unique, with natural born or god given rights. You view them as collective cattle. As members of a group, the young, the old, males, females, blacks, whites, poor, rich instead of dealing with each individual for what they are. Unique and sovereign.

You want to talk about selfish greed? How about millions of people living in poverty in the richest country in the world, while our politicians and bureaucrats make more money, and have better pensions than middle class citizens can hope to achieve. We don't just have a ruling class, their wealth and power makes them an aristocracy, and it is predicated on your big government notions of the state collecting all of the money, and deciding where it gets spent and who get awarded the contracts.

 

You mean mutation? From what I remember there has never been a proven occurance of mutation adding dna, only deleting it. Meaning its devolving.

 

I see where you are coming from on this, but we see society very differently. A society is a developed group that has accumulated social and productive gains.

Not a system of wealth distribution trending towards a flawed notion of equality. In Soviet Russia, wealth was redistributed, and society claimed a lot, but the society and standard of living itself was very low relative to Western Europe or North America.

Should a person be allowed to exist without a social contract? If I own property in the middle of the city, do I have the right to reject the social contract (assuming I am debt free, or will settle all debts)?

What I am saying is, are we born into a society, or do we make conscious decisions to participate or not? It's a question about free will and coercion.

Well, it's been proven time and time again, that taxes do nothing to stimulate real economic growth and productivity. They actually retard the free market, and create competitive imbalances.

But do you endorse milking someone, even if it's not so much they quit working, or become suicidal, but just enough to make their life harder and a little miserable? Do you feel that is fair or one of your rights?

Social parasites are a problem. Maybe not in Romania right now, but come to the West and see what too much affluence and increasing socialism breeds. Laziness, a sense of entitlement, a consumptive culture. People get fat, lack discipline, want an easy way out, or assistance when they make bad decisions with their life.

Right, but there is no such thing as free. So you're saying it is ok to take from me for your own education? Or that your kids should be educated at myself because you get that benefit whether you work or not, and you would rather I work and pay than you?

You can try to spin it 100 ways to make it sound like my moral duty, and it probably is, but that doesn't justify taking from one person and giving to another by force. If it's voluntary, it's charity and it's moral. If it's by coercion or force, that is evil.

Why not? I believe the right to secede is a fundamental human right.

I do believe in society and social contracts though. But voluntary contracts, not a contract you, Kalvin and StOx place on me. You're not my owners, or kings or parents. You have no moral right to impose conditions on my existence against my will.

So my view of society is different from yours. My impression is that you see it as a centrally organized and directed collective.

I view it as a collection of individuals working voluntarily to achieve common goals.

 

I agree. But you can't deny the society you live in has an important role in determining what reward you get for your work

so basicly western E. had it pretty good even if they had some wealth distribution, right?

not within a society.

laws are part of the social contract. Human rights are part of the social contract. Why would buying a property and having no debt give you the right to not respect those?

you are born into a society and you can make conscious decisions to participate or not. Last time I checked the borders are open and no one is forcing you to participate in the american society.

I don't endorse milking others but I don't have a problem with a system that gives some money for a short period of time to those who lost their job

if the social welfare was just enough to keep them from starving but not enough for a confortable life they would work too. That's the case in Romania now. It's hard even for many of those who work to have a confortable life. With the 50-60 euros/month help they get from the state one has to be a complete idiot not to work

I am saying all kids should get an education regardless of what their parents are doing or not doing. The kid has no fault at all

is forcing your kid to go to school evil too?

do you realise the result of such a policy?

we're not imposing anything on you. You voluntarily participate in our social contract if you want. If you don't want to you can move somewhere else. You could buy a boat and only sail in international waters or you could move to a deserted island. Living in a society has both positive and negative parts. You can leave any society and live somwhere else. But if you choose to live in a certain society and enjoy its benefits you're going to have to pay the price for it too

has any society prospered without centrally organising themselfs? Have you seen any society that doesn't have a "village chief" or something like that?

 

Guerrilla i'm going to stop humoring you now and simply press for the answers to the questions i KEEP asking you over and over again. Every time you post it becomes more and more apparent that you simply haven't thought this through at all.