Question For Darwinists

OilIsMastery said:
The plate tectonics cult, the constant size earth cult, and biogenic petroleum origin cult, to name 3 popular religions in science.
Click to expand...

So you mean 3 theories you disagree with although they fit the facts far better than your crackpot theories. You ideas are far more of "religions" than those.
 
pjdude1219 said:
There was no garden of eden. Why do you insist on interject religion into a scientific debate where it doesn't belong?
Click to expand...
He said animals stay the same despite so-called "evolution" which to me means they aren't evolving.

Want to know why? Because DNA actually works.

No matter how many times I tan, my kids will still be pale.
 
OilIsMastery said:
In 1959, 98% of the medical community thought that a human beings eyes would explode in outerspace due to zero G.
Click to expand...
James R said:
98%. Really? How interesting. Who did the poll?
Click to expand...
OilIsMastery said:
The 98% figure is a direct quote from Chris Kraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kraft
Click to expand...
rpenner said:
Why did you link to the Wikipedia article when it doesn't support your thesis?

While medical experts were strongly concerned about prolonged weightlessness, there is nothing like "eyeballs exploding" as a consensus view.
Click to expand...
OilIsMastery said:
In order to show James R. who Chris Kraft is and it's not my thesis. It's a quote.
Click to expand...
OilIsMastery said:
That confirms my argument. Here is the Chris Craft quote: "There was grave doubt in about 98% of the medical community that man could perform a task while flying in zero gravity. That he would have trouble seeing. That he would have trouble swallowing. That he would have trouble breathing. That he would have trouble talking. We had to prove to the medical community that man could survive in the first place and secondly that he could do a task."

Thus scientists believed on account of religion that man could not survive in space and they sent the chimpanzee instead.

The exploding eyeball quote is from John Glenn.
Click to expand...
Not your poll but a Quote, says you.
Not your thesis but a Quote, says you.
Not a Quote, says I.
Not a Quote but your argument, says you.

Well, here is Chris Kraft's actual sourced quote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243980/quotes
There's a trailer for that documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppOgZxm6QPE
And here's a You tube play list for the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvVWwg2oXWU&feature=PlayList&p=9FF1E6BEB426F103&index=0&playnext=1
So where's John Glenn's "exploding eyeball" quote? After 8 minutes there isn't even a logical place for John Glenn's alleged quote!

Finally, in part three, starting at 7:26 we have:
Narrator: NASA's biggest concern: Sheppard and Grissom were weightless for five minutes; Glenn will be weightless for nearly 5 hours.
John Glenn: Someone had predicted that in zero-g your eyes no longer needed to be supported by this structure under the eye and that your eye would gradually change shape in orbit. Your eye might change enough you'ld have trouble seeing the instrument panel.
Click to expand...
 
rpenner said:
Not your poll but a Quote, says you.
Not your thesis but a Quote, says you.
Not a Quote, says I.
Not a Quote but your argument, says you.

Well, here is Chris Kraft's actual sourced quote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243980/quotes
There's a trailer for that documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppOgZxm6QPE
And here's a You tube play list for the whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvVWwg2oXWU&feature=PlayList&p=9FF1E6BEB426F103&index=0&playnext=1
So where's John Glenn's "exploding eyeball" quote? After 8 minutes there isn't even a logical place for John Glenn's alleged quote!

Finally, in part three, starting at 7:26 we have:
Click to expand...
Thanks for your help...:D
 
OilIsMastery said:
He said animals stay the same despite so-called "evolution" which to me means they aren't evolving.

Want to know why? Because DNA actually works.

No matter how many times I tan, my kids will still be pale.
Click to expand...

You're really are an idiot. Enough said.
 
OilIsMastery said:
He said animals stay the same despite so-called "evolution" which to me means they aren't evolving.

Want to know why? Because DNA actually works.

No matter how many times I tan, my kids will still be pale.
Click to expand...

Thing won't change very much if they are still well suited to their environment. Why do you think sharks and crocodilians haven't changed much of the years.
 
OilIsMastery said:
That confirms my argument. Here is the Chris Kraft quote: "There was grave doubt in about 98% of the medical community that man could perform a task while flying in zero gravity. That he would have trouble seeing. That he would have trouble swallowing. That he would have trouble breathing. That he would have trouble talking. We had to prove to the medical community that man could survive in the first place and secondly that he could do a task."
Click to expand...
That disconfirms your argument, which was
OilIsMastery said:
In 1959, 98% of the medical community thought that a human beings eyes would explode in outerspace due to zero G.
Click to expand...
All that your extreme exaggeration, use of logical fallacies, and outright lies does is to make you look stupid. You would do much better in advancing your cause if you used cogent arguments rather than lies, fallacies, and non sequiturs.
 
No. My argument is that there is religion in science. 98% of the medical community thought man could not survive in space. That is no exaggeration and they were wrong.

Apparently you can't see that because you are blind to humanities fallibility and you think scientists are omniscient demigods who never err.
 
98% of the medical community thought man could not survive in space.
Click to expand...

And they were right.

After about 15 seconds exposure to space, you're unconscious. Soon after that, you die.
 
Since you cannot determine the DNA sequence of a fossil, it's not possible to tell the difference between externally similar life.
 
OilIsMastery said:
I'll give you another example since you're a fundamentalist who accepts the dogma of the bishops on the above issues. In 1959, 98% of the medical community thought that a human beings eyes would explode in outerspace due to zero G. Those are the religious forces which control science. They are called dogmatists or fundamentalists. They don't need observation because they have religion.
Click to expand...

That is a sound scientific assumption (hypothesis), not religious faith. Of course it had to be tested and was.
 
OilIsMastery said:
That doesn't address why we can't produce life in a lab.
Click to expand...

We can't do what now?

Check out Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome
Science 29 February 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1215 - 1220

Ongoing work (since completed but not yet published) by Dr. Smith et al. includes using the synthetic genome to transform existing mycoplasma, resulting in a totally synthetic bacterium after a few generations. The work is currently presented in Dr. Smith's standard seminar for anyone at an institution that manages to land him as a speaker, and I'd expect the paper within a year or so.

The method is essentially the same as they used for natural genome transformation in earlier work:
Genome Transplantation in Bacteria: Changing One Species to Another
Science 3 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 632 - 638

Not surprisingly, the 'minimal cell' that results is dependent on environmental supplementation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) that can also be readily reproduced in a lab.

I realize I'm feeding the trolls here, but I felt obligated to point out that addressing "why we can't produce life in a lab" is kind of pointless given that we can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top