Unintelligent Design

[vbnautilus 48]

Hardly irrelevant.We're not talking about a small issue that Darwin was wrong about. His entire understanding of how living tissue was based on the belief that the cell was the smallest thing in the world.

But the nature of the "smallest unit" was irrelevant to his theory. If you found that he started at the fact that the cell was the smallest thing and reasoned from that to evolution, then you have a point. But if it was just something he believed that he happened to be wrong about, why is it relevant? For instance, if he believed the moon was made of cheese, would that have made his reasoning based on the data he found in the Galapagos wrong? Another example: You happen to be wrong about everything relating to biology. That doesn't invalidate your knowledge of cigars. Or closer, you are completely wrong about evolutionary biology, but you still understand what the heart does. You can be wrong about one thing and be right about another. In order to argue what you want to argue, you have to show that somehow the two pieces of information depend on one another.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ben Stein thinks that the theory of evolution says that life began when "lightning struck a mud puddle...." I wouldn't be happy he was on my side of the fence if I were you

And you are also wrong about what Ben Stein believes.That means that currently you have been wrong about what everybody believes that you try to speak for.I would play a different game if I was you.Of course I can ask Ben, we're member's at the same club, and I'll be golfing tomorrow, although I don't think he golfs...hmmm

[Balloon guy 158]

But the nature of the "smallest unit" was irrelevant to his theory. If you found that he started at the fact that the cell was the smallest thing and reasoned from that to evolution, then you have a point. But if it was just something he believed that he happened to be wrong about, why is it relevant? For instance, if he believed the moon was made of cheese, would that have made his reasoning based on the data he found in the Galapagos wrong? Another example: You happen to be wrong about everything relating to biology. That doesn't invalidate your knowledge of cigars. Or closer, you are completely wrong about evolutionary biology, but you still understand what the heart does. You can be wrong about one thing and be right about another. In order to argue what you want to argue, you have to show that somehow the two pieces of information depend on one another.

ding ding ding

[speedz99 145]

Well this shows how poorly thought out your method of arriving at a conclusions, therefore I can now equate all your beliefs as being completely ignorant.

Oh, no, you don't get it, I was being you. So maybe you do get it.

Hardly irrelevant.We're not talking about a small issue that Darwin was wrong about. His entire understanding of how living tissue was based on the belief that the cell was the smallest thing in the world.

Dear BG,How does knowing "the smallest unit of life" affect Darwin's work with finches and his theory of natural selection...and in turn, the theory of evolution that came from it? How exactly does one affect the other?I would love to hear you answer the question we keep asking. Obviously you can't, so you can just admit that. How about this one...if, in the future, scientists find a unit of matter smaller than the quark (which they probably will), how much of modern knowledge does that discredit because it was based on "bad science"?Love, Speedz

[speedz99 145]

ding ding ding

Prove it. Prove that his theory was hinged upon the cell being the smallest unit of life. And that it not being the smallest unit of life affects his theory.That's all we're asking you to do.

[Mills 0]

And you are also wrong about what Ben Stein believes.That means that currently you have been wrong about what everybody believes that you try to speak for.I would play a different game if I was you.Of course I can ask Ben, we're member's at the same club, and I'll be golfing tomorrow, although I don't think he golfs...hmmm

*sigh* I dont know why I bother doing this you never know what you are arguing about

2:06Glenn Beck: "What about first cause"?Ben Stein: "Well the first cause is not... it's lightning striking a mud puddle, that's what the evolutionists say..."no, no it isn't.

[vbnautilus 48]

ding ding ding

If this is what you really believe, then I may have to -- I mean Alex Trebek should deduct an additional 10000 points from your score. Also, it isn't even true that Darwin thought the cell was indivisible. He looked at cells under the microscope all the time, and was well aware that they were not homogenous blobs. here is a figure attached to one of his writings http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/...ell_not_just_p/

[Balloon guy 158]

Prove it. Prove that his theory was hinged upon the cell being the smallest unit of life. And that it not being the smallest unit of life affects his theory.That's all we're asking you to do.

Here you go

[Balloon guy 158]

*sigh* I dont know why I bother doing this you never know what you are arguing about

2:06Glenn Beck: "What about first cause"?Ben Stein: "Well the first cause is not... it's lightning striking a mud puddle, that's what the evolutionists say..."no, no it isn't.

Darwin said life could start in some warm little pond....Who's worse?

[vbnautilus 48]

Here you go

Absent from all the ridiculous statements on that website is the claim that Darwin's theory was based on the idea that the cell was the smallest unit of life. Which, I guess gives your statement a tiny bit more credibility.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, no, you don't get it, I was being you. So maybe you do get it.Dear BG,How does knowing "the smallest unit of life" affect Darwin's work with finches and his theory of natural selection...and in turn, the theory of evolution that came from it? How exactly does one affect the other?I would love to hear you answer the question we keep asking. Obviously you can't, so you can just admit that. How about this one...if, in the future, scientists find a unit of matter smaller than the quark (which they probably will), how much of modern knowledge does that discredit because it was based on "bad science"?Love, Speedz

See, the disingenuousness you exhibit by signing off with LOVE speedz hurts.It hurts deep.

[Balloon guy 158]

Absent from all the ridiculous statements on that website is the claim that Darwin's theory was based on the idea that the cell was the smallest unit of life. Which, I guess gives your statement a tiny bit more credibility.

Really, ten minutes and you exhausted the entire web site's proofs...I am hurt by how little effort you put into my defending my world view form the vicious attacks thrown at me.Hurt I tell you.

[vbnautilus 48]

Really, ten minutes and you exhausted the entire web site's proofs...I am hurt by how little effort you put into my defending my world view form the vicious attacks thrown at me.Hurt I tell you.

They are not even claiming what you say they are claiming. And, I had already come across that page in trying to figure out where you were getting this from. Because it has the word "cell" and "Darwin" on the same page. But it doesn't even try to say that Darwin's ideas depended on the cell. The preposterous section they have regarding the cell is saying that it is so complex that it could not have arisen by "chance".

[Balloon guy 158]

They are not even claiming what you say they are claiming. And, I had already come across that page in trying to figure out where you were getting this from. Because it has the word "cell" and "Darwin" on the same page. But it doesn't even try to say that Darwin's ideas depended on the cell. The preposterous section they have regarding the cell is saying that it is so complex that it could not have arisen by "chance".

Yea, to be honest I didn't read anything on that site.Just was hoping to hit a home run.Most of my knowledge I get from books I read decades ago and are based on the information availabe at that time. as such many of conclusions may be false, but as you guys have clearly shown, they aren't wrong!

[Balloon guy 158]

But here's the lesson for the day boys and girls.In a thread, which bases it's conclusions on faulty logic, bad science and completely biased reasoning...If you disagree with the premise, you can not expect the level of proof to be equal for your position as the op's position.And as such, no matter how faulty the points are shown to be, the second the other side smells blood, they can't post fast enough that you are wrong.Even when they can't follow what you are saying.This is called open-mindedness to today's youth.As such I fear for our future.Good night

[speedz99 145]

Here you go

Obviously I'm not going to read that whole mess. I'm sure even you can see how many ridiculous errors there are within that site...but I think I read the section you're referring to.All he says is, "The cell is really complicated, so how could it have arisen via evolution?" I mean, aside from the obvious "god of the gaps" issue, it still in no way affects whether or not Darwin's theory was formulated using "bad science". Like we've said, and you've ignored, many times, the theory of natural selection (his main idea) in no way hinges upon a "smallest unit" of life.

See, the disingenuousness you exhibit by signing off with LOVE speedz hurts.It hurts deep.

Love hurts, man. Love scars.

[speedz99 145]

Most of my knowledge I get from books I read decades ago and are based on the information availabe at that time.

How many times do we have to tell you that the Bible doesn't count?

In a thread, which bases it's conclusions on faulty logic, bad science and completely biased reasoning...If you disagree with the premise, you can not expect the level of proof to be equal for your position as the op's position.And as such, no matter how faulty the points are shown to be, the second the other side smells blood, they can't post fast enough that you are wrong.Even when they can't follow what you are saying.This is called open-mindedness to today's youth.As such I fear for our future.Good night

Well, this is as close as we'll get to an "I was wrong about the cell thing," so I'll take it.

[Mills 0]

Yea, to be honest I didn't read anything on that site.

I am happy you are admitting this, seriously..

[BaseJester 1]

You are still making the declarative declaration that you are capable of judging God's decisions with regards to creation.I would ask you to please present your qualifications to declare the creation is flawed.Please include examples of things you have created, and the purpose that God had with His creation so you can show why your ways would have done a better job of arriving at God's desired conclusion.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I would screw up creation. Things would start working according to plan, and then the giant 4-legged bats might go crazy and eat everything. But if I were omniscient, I would see that coming and fix the bat. The only reason I'm using the first person here is to help imagine the perspective of the creator.

[Balloon guy 158]

I am happy you are admitting this, seriously..

I noticed that you gave speedz a pass for not reading my link.You do see why I notice this don't you?

[Balloon guy 158]

For the record, I'm pretty sure I would screw up creation. Things would start working according to plan, and then the giant 4-legged bats might go crazy and eat everything. But if I were omniscient, I would see that coming and fix the bat. The only reason I'm using the first person here is to help imagine the perspective of the creator.

Yea, easy to say: "I would have made the avocado pit smaller", but when you start thinking about how much of creation is in a symbiotic relationship, how physical laws must apply universally and how all things come together in a harmonious symphony of beauty, it makes the task a little more daunting.Maybe enough to even consider the possibility that we aren't up to the ability to judge it?

[Balloon guy 158]

How many times do we have to tell you that the Bible doesn't count?

Until Judgment Day...

Well, this is as close as we'll get to an "I was wrong about the cell thing," so I'll take it.

So I was wrong how?That Darwin wasn't wrong, or that he didn't base the religion of evolution on it?

[Balloon guy 158]

Obviously I'm not going to read that whole mess. I'm sure even you can see how many ridiculous errors there are within that site...but I think I read the section you're referring to.All he says is, "The cell is really complicated, so how could it have arisen via evolution?" I mean, aside from the obvious "god of the gaps" issue, it still in no way affects whether or not Darwin's theory was formulated using "bad science". Like we've said, and you've ignored, many times, the theory of natural selection (his main idea) in no way hinges upon a "smallest unit" of life.

So your contention is that natural selection was his main idea?Does the work of Louis Pasteur just 6 years later where he refuted that by stating that all things only beget like things, not give you pause that real science refuted Darwin's theory?Darwin was raised by a father touting spontaneous generation, and we all know that was false.Darwin said about this:Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thingbeing developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be provedsome day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).He touts a theory that has brought us eugenics.Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death.Darwin will one day be touted as the man who led the scientific world astray for the longest time, which I'm sure will upset Algore for getting knocked off his record ( without steroids)But hey, if you guys love him... have at it.Just don't get so testy when people point out his flaws.You guys act like psychiatrist who are told that Freud fudged his results to 'prove' his theories.

[Mills 0]

Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death..

He was skeptical about the natural selection part... This was in the 19th century... we've learned quite a bit since then, thank you very much

[speedz99 145]

So I was wrong how?That Darwin wasn't wrong, or that he didn't base the religion of evolution on it?

At the moment, all I'm saying is that his theories in no way hinged upon the cell as being the smallest unit of life, therefore using the fact that he didn't know the full inner workings of the cell as a means for calling his work "bad science" is monumentally stupid. Hell, you couldn't find ONE website that agrees with your "it's bad science because he didn't know certain things about the cell"...the best you could find was "the cell is too complex to have evolved from something else". Not one website to back you up...that's a new low, bud. Let this one go. Keep thinking that evolution is a myth and the world is 6,000 years old (even though I think that deep down you know that's ridiculous), but give up on the "bad science due to the cell" thing. It's making you look just incredibly thick-headed. Usually you at least have some kind of warped logic behind your statements, this one is scary bad.

So your contention is that natural selection was his main idea?Does the work of Louis Pasteur just 6 years later where he refuted that by stating that all things only beget like things, not give you pause that real science refuted Darwin's theory?Darwin was raised by a father touting spontaneous generation, and we all know that was false.Darwin said about this:Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thingbeing developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be provedsome day in accordance with the law of continuity (see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).He touts a theory that has brought us eugenics.Pasteur, a Christian, is probably owed the title as best scientist for his contributions to society. He refuted Origin of Species from day one til his death.Darwin will one day be touted as the man who led the scientific world astray for the longest time, which I'm sure will upset Algore for getting knocked off his record ( without steroids)But hey, if you guys love him... have at it.Just don't get so testy when people point out his flaws.You guys act like psychiatrist who are told that Freud fudged his results to 'prove' his theories.

Going on wiki and making your way to an obscure Pastuer quote isn't helping your cause. An extremely important scientist in Darwin's day questioned his theory...genius, that should show you that natural selection and evolution WERE NOT taken as fact right away, and only after being validated an an extraordinary number of ways came to be universally considered as the most likely truth by anyone with a brain.And, uh, psychiatrists know that a lot of Freud's stuff was crap...but they still have taken some of his theories, the ones proven to be correct, and have built upon them. That's how science works. If you don't see how this is a positive and objective way to learn about the world around us, I'm sorry.It was cute how you mentioned that Pasteur was a christian though. As if the thousands of influential scientists over the past few hundred years have all been atheists...sorry again, but many have been religious in some capacity. Your "one day" story was amusing too...since we all know that one day (though not for a long time) christianity will be looked at the same way as we see now look at the religions of the Egyptions, Greeks, etc. Don't worry though, people will also will look back and wonder how anyone could have seriously been Jewish, Muslim, or really anything else we currently see on this planet.