Dear Atheist,

[r00t]

Pretty sure the mathematical properties that govern the stability of our universe are proof enough that creation was not an accident. DNA databases and the complex systems they confer is like cherry on top of the proverbial cake. Eat it atheists

[Lune]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty sure the mathematical properties that govern the stability of our universe are proof enough that creation was not an accident. DNA databases and the complex systems they confer is like cherry on top of the proverbial cake. Eat it atheists

All this talk of eating, cake, cherries on top of things. You been spending too much time with tralina?

[DrKvothe]

Boggwin, your chosen profession is an admirable one, but I agree with those flaming you that your education doesn't qualify you to make broad scientific statements. To be fair, an MD wouldn't qualify you either. These are not degrees that vigorously enforce the scientific method, nor do they require in depth investigation through the published peer-reviewed research literature.

Medical doctors who want to conduct research typically need a phd as well as their MD. They also typically conduct supervised postdoctoral research before they're deemed qualified to lead their own research program.

The physical evidence does not support the conclusion that all species initially coexisted. The fossil record is quite convincing that more primitive species once existed but have gone extinct and that many modern species appear to have arisen fairly recently. Evolution has proven to be a powerful optimization algorithm within observable timeframes. Consider the Lenski experiment, or even the results of intentional breeding which gave rise to all modern domesticated species.

Creationism's strongest argument is that no other theory is possible. The scientific community does not agree with this assertion. At the molecular level, life is messy and filled with artifacts that suggest nonrational development. The elegance you suggest demands a creator is entirely inelegant from a molecular biology view.

[kylok]

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Boggwin, your chosen profession is an admirable one, but I agree with those flaming you that your education doesn't qualify you to make broad scientific statements. To be fair, an MD wouldn't qualify you either. These are not degrees that vigorously enforce the scientific method, nor do they require in depth investigation through the published peer-reviewed research literature.

Medical doctors who want to conduct research typically need a phd as well as their MD. They also typically conduct supervised postdoctoral research before they're deemed qualified to lead their own research program.

The physical evidence does not support the conclusion that all species initially coexisted. The fossil record is quite convincing that more primitive species once existed but have gone extinct and that many modern species appear to have arisen fairly recently. Evolution has proven to be a powerful optimization algorithm within observable timeframes. Consider the Lenski experiment, or even the results of intentional breeding which gave rise to all modern domesticated species.

Creationism's strongest argument is that no other theory is possible. The scientific community does not agree with this assertion. At the molecular level, life is messy and filled with artifacts that suggest nonrational development. The elegance you suggest demands a creator is entirely inelegant from a molecular biology view.

OMG this thank you thank you thank you for taking the time to write that out coherently.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Boggwin, your chosen profession is an admirable one, but I agree with those flaming you that your education doesn't qualify you to make broad scientific statements.

For one, I gave an opinion, not a broad scientific statement. I stated nothing as fact in my original post. Second, my point on hard science dealt with the widely regarded degree in which sciences are measured. Again, Hard science being natural sciences and Soft science being social sciences. I am not referring to degrees of hardness or softness. So don't worry, you all are still "uber bestest" when it come to being to most hardcore of science nerds. I to be honest, I never thought I would convert an Atheist on an EQ emu server message board. I still think you are wrong, but I am not belittling you for thinking that way. And I am not attack you personally.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For one, I gave an opinion, not a broad scientific statement. I stated nothing as fact in my original post. Second, my point on hard science dealt with the widely regarded degree in which sciences are measured. Again, Hard science being natural sciences and Soft science being social sciences. I am not referring to degrees of hardness or softness. So don't worry, you all are still "uber bestest" when it come to being to most hardcore of science nerds. I to be honest, I never thought I would convert an Atheist on an EQ emu server message board. I still think you are wrong, but I am not belittling you for thinking that way. And I am not attack you personally.

If you had just given your opinion, nobody would have said anything. But you tried to use your education in nursing to assert some kind of authority. Maybe that kind of sloppy thinking cuts it at church, but not in science. Nobody gets to say something is simply because they have authority. Most people in the hard sciences understand this.

[r00t]

it is impossible to calculate the entropy of even a small amount of segments of hydrocarbons naturally forming into a dna strand.

then why the randomness to have a mechanism to self replicate? youre defying common sense

[r00t]

the big bang theory doesnt even explain existence as you atheists naturally go to to explain genesis. It simply gives definition of measurable time being a side effect of matter. You can still talk philosophically about immeasurable time, ie. what was there in the infinity before the bang

[kylok]

many lulz in this thread. Hate to burst your bubble Boggwin but you're only at the tip of the iceberg of "hard science". Take a few high end physics classes or physical chemistry, where they explain the how and why of you're supposed "intelligent design" then come back to me. Also - modern biology is firmly rooted in Darwinian evolution type logic so I'm not quite sure where you're pulling ID out of any bio class that isn't taught out of the humanities department. I can definitely understand your biased towards the intelligent design view point as you were probably raised with it, and repeatedly reinforce that brainwashing by going to church weekly. That being said, as a scientist, the hypothesis of intelligent design is TERRIBLE fucking science. I'll break it down for you as you clearly do not understand scientific method (what makes science science, as opposed to playing pin the tail on the donkey with origin theories). Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Results. If the results do not agree with the hypothesis you start over, you DO NOT tweak the experiment or fudge the hypothesis a little to match your results. What you have done is observed human biology, done no testing, and concluded that god (purposeful lowercase) made man. This is analogous to me saying look, the moon looks like cheese, I bet the moon is made of cheese, since I lack the knowledge and resources to test my hypothesis, I'll conclude that the moon is made of cheese - since I like cheese. Believe what you will but don't come and try to say that it's anything other than belief (not logic based). Imo stick to poli sci you're probably too old to adjust to mindset properly to do good science.

[r00t]

I still precribe to the theory that we are living in the computer simulation of an advanced species