Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[moot]

Are quantum or string theories of the supernatural? If not, please explain why.

They respect scientific protocol. Cut to the chase please, this is tedious.

That's a circular argument if ever I heard one.

It's not.  "I need your definition of "supernatural" before I answer you." asks for a definition of what we could never detect or explain with our finite perception. It follows that supernatural is exactly that. My question was meant to point out exactly the circular flaw in ID/Creationist attempts at inserting religion in science.

[AKIron]

They respect scientific protocol. Cut to the chase please, this is tedious.
It's not.  "I need your definition of "supernatural" before I answer you." asks for a definition of what we could never detect or explain with our finite perception. It follows that supernatural is exactly that. My question was meant to point out exactly the circular flaw in ID/Creationist attempts at inserting religion in science.

Scientific protocol? You mean a set of standards that is constantly changing? Not a very good basis for deciding what is beyond your scope of exploration. I'll argue that man's imagination is what has driven all significant scientific discoveries, not scientific protocol.

[moot]

It doesn't change.  Where did you see such a thing?  Science is as fixed as logic.
Imagination might provide a source of ideas, to feed the assembly line of science, and that freely draws from outside paradigms' boxes, but it doesn't change the fact that hypothesies and theories answer to reality's practical confirmation or refutal.  There is no science without an unheeding adherence to logic and practical results. 
Faith isn't bound by this and so does not belong in science.

[AKIron]

It doesn't change.  Where did you see such a thing? 
Science is as fixed as logic.

I'll agree that it should be fixed only as the search for truth but it isn't always practiced this way. Science as practiced today often discounts suppostions based on established "facts". Too often these facts are proven unfactual. Need I go further than man made global warming as evidence?

[moot]

"Should be"
"isn't always practiced this way"
Need I say more?

[storch]

storch, you seem to be under the impression that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in an ongoing campaign to disprove the existence of god.
i'm not up to date with the literature, so perhaps you can tell me roughly how many papers were submitted for peer review arguing the hypothesis "god does not exist" in the last year?

I'm a semi literate layman.  I'm a welder by trade. 

[Holden McGroin]

Too often these facts are proven unfactual.

Which is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

A search for the truth of the natural world based on faith is at best a crippled effort.

Science allows someone to say "Based on this new evidence, I was wrong"

Religious dogma by its very nature does not.

However, Einstein once said, “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”

Johannas Kepler spent years researching the orbits of the planets looking for mathematical evidence of God's hand.

Galileo was convicted of heresy when he started teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible which wouldn't conflict with what he knew science was proving to be true. The new interpretation was contrary to what the Church believed and the Church had complete governing power to enforce its belief and sentence Galileo for heresy.

Scientists and religious faith are not mutually exclusive

[lazs2]

Ya know... I am gonna quit this one while I am ahead.

There sure does seem to be a lot of prejudice, intolerance  and ignorance on both sides of the issue.

To not even mention the possibility of the supernatural on the one hand and to give a literal interpretation of the bible or whatever on the other.   

Lots of fear.  What happened to live and let live?

lazs

[moot]

Lots of fear.  What happened to live and let live?

"Liability"?

In a nutshell, the problem is that scientists are corrupted, the same way politicians and gun-owners and religious people are.  That doesn't mean that the scientific method, or the US Constitution, or guns, or the Bible ought to be thrown out the window. 
Science has logic and peer review, US politics have common sense and the Constitution, guns have ethics, and religion has.. well that's a special case

It's the people that failed the rules (and ideals that made the rules), not the rules that failed the people.

[myelo]

Looks like this thread is gonna last longer than the movie will be around.

[storch]

Looks like this thread is gonna last longer than the movie will be around.

well it is a compelling topic

[MORAY37]

I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep?  Or did they get it right the first time?  In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work?  I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me .

Lambo

It's posts like these... this is an unarmed man attacking a machine gun nest.  You have no clue whatsoever on what you are talking about.  Organisms cannot "choose" traits.... they don't "pick" which ones might work and which ones won't.  Genetic variability shows up only  AFTER pressure is applied to the organism in question.... It's pretty much just "luck" as to which genetic trait is going to turn out positively for the organism.  Please go back and read up on what you are talking about, prior to speaking.

quick example... a random genetic variation allows .01% of the population of say, humans, access to immunity to H5n1.  Say the human population is 10,000, to keep  the numbers low.  Out of those 10,000, 100 would have this unlikely trait, and most likely not know it. H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host.  9,900 of the population have no defense against this new pressure.  100 have natural immunity.  Those 100 will survive and reproduce, because they were most readliy prepared for the selective pressure (H5n1) that the population faced.  A preponderance of the offspring will now carry that trait.

[Donzo]

quick example... a random genetic variation allows .01% of the population of say, humans, access to immunity to H5n1.  Say the human population is 10,000, to keep  the numbers low.  Out of those 10,000, 100 would have this unlikely trait, and most likely not know it. H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host.  9,900 of the population have no defense against this new pressure.  100 have natural immunity.  Those 100 will survive and reproduce, because they were most readliy prepared for the selective pressure (H5n1) that the population faced.  A preponderance of the offspring will now carry that trait.

So this "preponderance of the offspring", are they human?

[Holden McGroin]

So this "preponderance of the offspring", are they human?

yes. 

But consider two seperate identical but isolated populations of humans.  They begin to be selected from entirely different environmental conditions where they live.  It is cold where one population lives, and they are selected due to their ability to battle severe cold. The second population lives in tropical desert conditions, and is selected because of it's ability to battle heat.

With enough isolation this selection happens over 100,000 generations, 100,000 times, the two populations could branch into 2 seperate human species.  One furry heat efficient species and one that can tolerate a hot desert climate.

[Donzo]

yes. 

But consider two seperate identical but isolated populations of humans.  They begin to be selected from entirely different environmental conditions where they live.  It is cold where one population lives, and they are selected due to their ability to battle severe cold. The second population lives in tropical desert conditions, and is selected because of it's ability to battle heat.

With enough isolation this selection happens over 100,000 generations, 100,000 times, the two populations could branch into 2 seperate human species.  One furry heat efficient species and one that can tolerate a hot desert climate.

But if the a male from the furry tribe and one from the bikini tribe got it on, they would produce a HUMAN, right?


Are their DNA different?