/sci/ - Science & Math

The most taboo science is psychology. The predictive power and accuracy of IQ enrages those who scored low so much that they deny the validity of psychology as a scientific field.

chronobiology - contradicts nine-to-five work ethic
neurobiology - disproves free will
knowledge of intestine anatomy - opposes beauty and fashion businesses
oncology - threatens tobacco industry

I guess it can be said that a lot of people see the human body as some sort of inexplicably complex 'creation' that shouldn't be toyed with? I mean, the body is extremely complex, but we understand most aspects of it. Most individuals who oppose stem cell research, evolution, etc. are also religulous.

>>6192022
Because, out of all the sciences, none of them hit home quite as hard as biology, because it IS your body, the most sacred thing in your mind. And well people start studying and debunking and questioning things about the most sacred thing in the universe to you, it has a tendency to put lesser minds off.

>>6192022
>Evolution
>Contradict all religion

Nice to see new posters from Reddit, however, before you post, you might wish to remove any fedoras from the premises.

>>6192022
Biology is taboo because of that

However, only the most deluded of PC cultists deny non-psychological differences between races

A majority of people will have no problem admitting that West African slave stock are predisposed to be better sprinters or that white people are predisposed to be better at digesting dairy

However, to many people, the idea that evolution caused differences in behaviour and intelligence between races is evil

So, biology that deals with the brain (including psychology) is the most taboo science

I don't know about the field of genetics being all that taboo

Because the brain and behaviour is so complex, a whole lot of the contentious research about racial psychological differences doesn't even look at the genes
Instead, more holistic methods, such as adoption studies, are used to infer heritability

dont forget cloning and GMOs

>>6192036
I'm thinking people deem psychology non scientific due to the fact that mental processes cannot be empirically studied, basically because they can't be ,measured directly. Due to this there's no way we unambiguously quantify anything in the study everything about is just theoretically inferred.

Any objective bodily measurements are only indistinguishably vague approximations of underlying neurological dynamics.

People don't call it pseudoscience to demean the field they call it pseudoscience because its actually pseudoscience.

>>6192184
All info is inferred. Specially in physics. U think they count atoms with their fingers?

>>6192184
>inferred
...m8

>>6192191
I am aware, my point is that if all of your observation is made indirectly and based entirely upon empirically guided theoretical inferences then as a result no direct measurements can be made to quantify anything.

OP is engaging in an almost criminal oversimplification.

This is also the problem with most people who have a problem with science, they don't know what the fuck it really means because they're too stupid.

>>6192022
>Evolution - contradict all religion
Evolution- contradicts real science.

The law of biogenesis states that "Life does not arise from non living material."
It has never been proven wrong.

No one disputes adaptation, but spontaneous generation has been dis-proven. Yet evolution requires it.

As for Genetics. How would racial differences be a problem for religion. Evolution claims all life has a common ancestor. The best I can tell the study of genetics lends credit for intelligent design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

>>6192022
>Is biology the most taboo science. Why

because it hurts the most feelings.

just wait until we can genetically engineer babies or rejuvenate people.

>>6192036
you deny anyone with a high IQ menospreciates psychology?

>>6193360
We have recreated the early earth in lab environments and lo and behold, when bombarded with electricity (lightning on earth) and radiation, molecules that form DNA begin to appear.

Give it a few million years and the right conditions, and life will seemingly generate out of nowhere.

Learn your shit

>>6193360
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, kiddo

>>6193360
Gr8 br8 mr8

>>6192098
you got it wrong. good racial stereotypes are ok, bad racial stereotypes are racist.

I can say latinos work hard or that blacks run fast, or sometimes that asians are smarter, and no one bats an eye. If you say latinos smell, blacks commit more crime or the japanese are depraved though, you're neoHitler.

>>6193379
Why are facts racist?

>>6192191

Welcome to the Scientific Method. Make an inference (a hypothesis), and then test it. The problem with psychology being considered a science is that it deals with the subjective, qualitative experiences of human beings. Psychoanalysis is especially centered on this. Since we cannot rigorously test or quantify experiences/thoughts given current technology, it's impossible to hold psychoanalytical notions to the test of experimentation. Psychologists are generally trusted by laypeople on authority or seniority and not on predictive accuracy or empirical determinations.

>>6193384
because they're bad. people don't like a big number of people being bad things. that's mean and something people prefer not to be real.

it's not about the stereotypes being racial for most people, but about the stereotypes being bad.

>>6192022

Muh business, muh money, muh religion, muh values, muh egalitarianism.

We've forgotten how to live, and we've forgotten what the fuck common sense is. A million people aren't necessarily smarter than one, but we like to believe that is true because "muh democracy" and "monarchies are bad".

>>6193384
Because MUH EQUALITY MUH PRIVILEGE
Its fucking sickening.
I want real fucking studies to be done to investigate psychological differences between races stemming from genetics. But if someone tried to, theyd be forced to shut it down because tis too taboo. Its fucking happened before. I dont personally actually think there are psychological differences between races stemming from their brains being somehow different, rather than just culture and class, but it is NOT an unreasonable concept. Its worth studying to find out what the case really is. But nooooo DAS RAYSUS CHECK UR PRIVILEGE

>>6193368
[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

If someone has proven this false. They would change the definition of this term. It would no longer be a scientific law.

>>6193371
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."

>>6193379

>latinos smell
>japanese are depraved
>blacks commit more crime

Actually all of those things describe Blacks. If we discover that there IS a god, then people will realize Blacks were engineered for hard work (e.g. mining in quarries and tilling in fields).

>>6193404
yep. Once that life arises, evolution explains how biodiversity arises, which species survive and why, how they adapt etc. It does not deal with how living matter arises from non-living matter.

>>6193413
Then where did this living material come from?

If life did not create its self, then something else created it.
I'm fairly certain that most people that believe in evolution, believe that life originated from some primordial soup.

>>6193401

Nobody wants to confront inequality between the races. To acknowledge that Blacks commit more crime in the world would mean that ramifications of said research would soon follow.

I went to a school in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and I remember the teachers and police having a discussion about rape and had all the kids stand up. They told us to sit down as they called off descriptions based on skin and hair color. I was one of three blond-haired, blue-eyed kids left standing and they pointed out that we were the majority of described rapists. I can recall the burning hatred from the Black and Hispanic kids' eyes, even the one White teacher that had a Black husband. I guess they did it to make the Black kids feel better about themselves.

I wish I know about percentages and per capita, so I could have called everyone out on their bullshit. "Yeah, but Blacks are only 13% of the population. So if a Black dude and a White guy were approaching a woman, statistically-speaking, who would be more likely to rape her?" God how I wish I knew then what I know now.

>>6193419
>Then where did this living material come from?

You like quoting wikipedia articles. Go to the one for abiogenesis.

The proper answer would be "we don't know. we have some plausible theories and some less plausible ones, but it's fucking hard to prove how some microscopical chemicals 3,8 billion years ago did their thing."

>If life did not create its self, then something else created it.

not necessarily. Invoking god as an explanation has never helped anyone. That doens't mean it isn't okay that you believe in him, but keep him separated from your explanations of the natural world.

>I'm fairly certain that most people that believe in evolution, believe that life originated from some primordial soup.

nope. don't let the US mislead you. Most christians believe in evolution, and most people that believe in evolution are Christians.

>>6193418
Everyone acknowledges certain groups tend more to certain actions. The point is to find out what determines them to do so.

>>6193436
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that says life created its self. The evidence for this is we are here.
No one has ever demonstrated this ever.
Biogenesis has been demonstrated to be true, and has never been dis proven.

>Invoking god as an explanation has never helped anyone.

No one invoked god to explain anything.

>>6193458
you said
>>6193419
If life did not create its self, then something else created it.

so, let me make a second guess. aliens?

>>6193469
>If life did not create its self
>If
I never stated one way or the other. "If" implies a conditional situation.

>blacks commit more crime

Yeah well no shit, the whole slavery situation in Africa and the Americas influenced that.

Slavery in on itself is a eugenics program, it rarely tries to select for higher intelligence and the entire atmosphere of it promotes higher levels of aggression to be passed on.

It'll probably be several centuries before these traits can even be curbed to the point where they become less prominent then they are because now blacks will finally have the choice to choose less aggressive/more smarter mates on their on accord instead of being forced to procreate with some random bum in some slum barracks.

It also still surprises me how Africa Americans as a whole haven't outright written off Africa entirely for letting them get fucked over like this.

>>6193585
Reasons that can be ascribed to the actions of groups in the past or socioeconomic conditions does not make a piece of human garbage any better of a person. Nobody bears any responsibility for the acts of people in the past because they share a skin color with them, what matters is what individuals are actually like, and arguably, in some ways, cultures, but thats another matter.

>>6193401
Google 'Maori warrior gene'
Maia gene causes them anti social behaviour

>>6193401
Google 'Maori warrior gene'
Maoa gene causes them anti social behaviour

>>6193469
God is fully capable of creating universes that develop due to natural laws where life appears from non-life when the conditions are right.

>>6193688
If God is omnipotent then he could do anything that is possible. No one is arguing the power of an omnipotent being.

I think what you were trying to say is. even if science would prove that life could generate spontaneously, it would not dis prove God.

I think the fact that science has not proven abiogenesis, is strong evidence for intelligent design.

>>6193726
Nothing can disprove or prove god.

Lack of abiogenesis proves nothing either...do u even have an imagination?

>>6193733
According to the bible, God does not pertain to the laws of the Universe
Considering that all of existence is contained in the Universe, you can extrapolate that God, under his own terms, does not even exist
Basically, he's just a figment of our imagination, through and through

>>6193726
That's fallacious.
You're invoking devil's proof. The burden of proof is still on them. You cannot say "intelligent design" without declaring precisely what designed it, with proof THAT designed it, and answering the even more complex question of what designed the designer.

>>6193726
>strong evidence for intelligent design
Not knowing how something works does not imply supernatural origin. We used to think that a great number of phenomena were caused by gods or spirits, but literally everything we're now able to explain is explainable by natural processes. We have never once found proof that a god has created or done anything.

>>6193800
Hey hows your comm class going?

>>6193733
>>6193800
>>6193837
If one has faith in science. The law of biogenesis says life comes from life. One could draw the conclusion that life on earth was put here, rather than spontaneously generated. Unless biogenesis is proven to be wrong, that is the logical conclusion.

>>6193726
There has been no proof pointing to a god. It's the "invisible unicorn" thing; I can say something exists all I want, but it doesn't mean it is true. You cannot convince me that it does not exist, because I have convinced myself it exists with the lack of proof proving that it doesn't. Which is bullshit.
It needs some sort of proof, which it does not have, regardless of how many people subscribe to the idea that it is true.

>>6193987
Life is made of nonlife and nonliving mechanisms produce it right now...I don't see the big deal with biogenesis...

>>6194042

the invisible unicorn does not have to exist.

its the context in which you use it.

....at the very least anyway.

life was created by time-travellers

>>6193987
Hurt durr. All intelligence comes from biology there for all intelligent designers are biological...

Ipso facto there is an immortal biological, alien somewhere who made the rest of us duurrr. All intelligence is caused matter hence gods are all material

Implying intelligence is necessary to make things like lightning and suns...

>>6194058

by most standards thats what an all knowing, ever existing god is.

although your limiting the term.

>>6194048
>Life is made of nonlife and nonliving mechanisms produce it right now

If nonliving mechanisms produce life, why do we not see spontaneous generation.

>>6194061
>All intelligence comes from biology there for all intelligent designers are biological.

This is a false assumption.

Intelligent life is a form of intelligence, but one cannot say that it is the only form. Unless you have managed to rule out all other forms.
An all powerful spiritual being could very well exist, and if so would by definition be the supreme intelligence.

Otherwise nice deductive reasoning.

Also I never implied intelligence was necessary for non living things to exist.

>>6194176
>If nonliving mechanisms produce life, why do we not see spontaneous generation.

how would we know where to look? it would be microscopic, in some underwater vent, or turn into some sort of bacteria...could be happening right now

>An all powerful spiritual being could very well exist, and if so would by definition be the supreme intelligence.

This is meaningless in more ways than one.

>>6194312
>could be happening right now
speculation

An all powerful ...
>This is meaningless

On the contrary it served to prove your previous statement "All intelligence comes from biology there for all intelligent designers are biological."
was a false assumption.

>>6194176
>If nonliving mechanisms produce life, why do we not see spontaneous generation.

Nonliving mechanisms do produce life, and life is made out of non-living matter.
There a billion processes that are not "living" that compel and facilitate life, they all work in the background at the cellular and atomic level, the all "know" what to do without some wizard or alien telling them what to do. It's happening as we speak.

Each cell is made out of non living parts. You are made out of non-living parts. It doesn't take intelligence to reproduce anyway, bacteria reproduce quite easily and they don't know wtf is going on. We reproduce perfectly without knowing wtf we are doing, we just engage in some motions that feel good completely blind to the machinery involved.

Where did this idea come from that things need "intelligence" behind them in any sense? Intelligence is not necessary for anything at all in this universe.

>>6194320
I was basing my claim of intelligent design on the scientific law of biogenesis.
see >>6193987

>>6194324
>I was basing my claim of intelligent design on the scientific law of biogenesis.

That's illogical in a few ways.
Life can be dependent on previous-life forms without an initial intelligent designer entering the picture. Biogenesis can be true without a designer: it's life all the way down, in one shape or another.


Biogenesis is not a real scientific law, despite what Pasteur thought. The probability that abiogenesis happened is very high: refer http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/395.full.pdf+html


You can't hold biogenesis + intelligent design, they are mutually excluse. Unless you are okay with the designer being labelled a biological living designer. Biogenesis says livings things can only come from living things, and "life" in Biogenesis has a definition not favorable to ghost wizards that exist outside time.

>>6194383
Life cannot spontaneously generate.
Life exists.
Some intelligence has to have created it.
Seems logical to me
The only possible flaw is life can spontaneously generate.
Which would go against known science.

>>6194383
>biological living designer
I know they were talking about biologically living, but the law of biogenesis does not state it as such, nor would it not allow for a spiritual god.
An intelligent spiritual being could be considered to be living. In fact the bible refers to god as the living god.

>>6192083
well said.

>>6194392
>Life cannot spontaneously generate.

Life arises when the conditions are right, just like every other phenomena in the universe.

Are you saying every phenomena requires a designer?

>Life exists. Some intelligence has to have created it. Seems logical to me

You're missing some premises there...the conclusion doesn't follow.


>The only possible flaw is life can spontaneously generate.
>Which would go against known science.

Biogenesis is not science, it's just a common observation--just like the observation that all intelligence is biological.

Proposing an intelligent designer that is not biological also goes against known science.

Biogenesis + Intelligent design contradict each other.

>>6194407
>I know they were talking about biologically living, but the law of biogenesis does not state it as such...

BIO-genesis.
lol

If you think Bio-genesis allows ghosts or spirits to create life, then you really are confused.

>>6194410
>Biogenesis is not science, it's just a common observation.

In science we observe things and draw conclusions from what we can observe. In fact demonstration is key in science. If you cannot recreate the results, then no one will take serious your claim.
No one has ever seen spontaneous generation, nor has it ever been demonstrated. In fact it has been dis-proven,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms"

How does biogenesis in contradiction from intelligent design?
If as I have said life does not create its self, and life is here, then someone must have created it.

>>6194416
If biological life requires biological life. Then how did biological life come to exist?

>abiogenesis is anti-science

but there is theoretical evidence supporting its possibility and probability...and it makes sense physically

>it's safer to assume that a ghost cast a spell to create life, most likely a smart ghost.

>>6194421
>theoretical evidence

lol good one anon

>>6193418
That's pretty fucked-up, on top of being factually false.

>>6194417
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
" For the modern hypothesis of the origin of life, see Abiogenesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


>>6194418
>how did biological life come to exist?

There are many models explaining how:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Leftists hate biology more than religious people.

I had a butthurt leftist angrily ask me "TELL ME WHERE THE CAPITALISM GENE IS?!" when I told him his ideology ignores human nature and genetics.

>>6194456

sometimes, but it's usually the right wing that's more science-illiterate.

sure, there are exceptions on both sides, but most of my professors are liberals, most of my grade school teachers conservative.

with education and prosperity comes unbiased perspective, leading to more left-wing oriented views.

>>6192036
Except I have a high IQ and I know IQ and psychology is shit.

>>6192087
>Tells someone to go to reddit
>Because he got butt hurt that someone disagreed with him
>And has to use memes as a defense
Fuck off out of /sci/.

>>6192087
>Being this butthurt religious
>on /sci/
You are the one who should leave.

>>6192098
>However, to many people, the idea that evolution caused differences in behaviour and intelligence between races is evil
But there is no evidence for this.

Other sciences mess with our environment.
Biology messes with ourselves. You can see how that goes directly against many fundamentalist beliefs and religions.

>>6194489
There is countless evidence for this.

>>6193408
Did you get raped by a black guy once? You seem a little mad.

>>6194421
>Theoretical
You don't even know what a theory is you stupid fuck. Where did this wave of retards come from? /pol/? /x/?

>>6194501
Why do you hate your own people?

What did we ever do to you bro?

:<

>>6194456
>Human nature
No retard, you are the idiot in this case. He was rightfully mad because you were talking complete bullshit.

>>6192087

> Hurr durr atheists and anyone else who disagrees with me wears fedoras and has a neckbeard.

Get this shitty reddit meme out of here. It doesn't even make sense.

>>6194497
like?

>>6194514
Its ironic how he is using a meme from reddit to tell people to go back to reddit. I leave /sci/ for a few months and come back and see all these retards. Did /pol/ or something invade while I was gone?

>>6194497
Sure there is bro. It is just secret evidence that only you know of. Unless when you mean races you mean different species of human.

>>6194517
>>6194523
MAOA

>>6194501
He's making lofty sweeping generalizations. I don't think he's mad it makes more sense to assume he's retarded.

>>6194528
I assume you mean the variant called the "Warrior gene" which is in a minority of every race. Unless you are trying to argue that black men get better erections.

>>6194528
Different races have different chances of getting psychological disorders too but I thought we were talking about non minorities. Something that is seen in most of a certain race.

>>6194513
>HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, GENETICS AND HUMAN NATURE

HAHAHA

What the fuck are you doing on /sci/?

>>6194541
It is that you don't know how they work. You are acting like genes make up everything in how a human acts. Human nature or how it is usually described is complete bullshit.

>>6194513
You are on a science board.

Why do you expect us to take you seriously if you don't even believe in human instincts and their genetic causes.

>>6194547
>it's bullshit man, hormones and the different parts of the brain don't even exist, everything is a social construct, marx was right, fuck science

Just get the fuck out now.

Seriously.

>>6194556
Nice strawman there bro.

>>6194514
We all know atheists are friendless, socially awkward permavirgins who wear fedoras and trenchcoats, there's not really any defending it at this point.

>>6194547
>You are acting like genes make up everything in how a human acts.

Uh they kind of do.

>>6194550
>Using human nature during a political argument
Always bullshit. Kind of like how Hitler had a bad understanding of evolution and used it as a justification for his acts.

>>6194559

I always assumed it was some anime thing. The only people who dressed this way were in the anime club at my university.

>>6194563
Nice to know you don't know a thing about behavioral biology.

>>6194563
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

>>6194559
And all theists are butthurt soccer moms :)

>>6194564
>Using denial of human nature during a political argument
Always bullshit. Kind of like how Stslin and Mao had a bad understanding of evolution and used it as a justification for their murderous acts.

Reminder leftists are creationists.

>>6194575
Nice strawmaning bro.

>>6194575

> Leftists
> Creationists.

Pretty sure there is a negative correlation between liberal beliefs and belief in creationism.

Most creationists are conservative and religious.

>>6194575
>Says one extreme is wrong so you have to be the other extreme

Speaking of biology, know whatd be an interesting experiment?
A training-eugenics program with a large group of mountain gorillas.
Attempt to stimulate necessity and opportunity for things like tool use or communication as well as selectively favouring more intelligent specimens. Say, if a few display extraordinary intelligence compared to the others, give them some sort of weapons and teach them to make use of them. Ideally theyd double as tools as well. In internal fights of any kind, youd have suddenly created the technological drive of war, in theory, while selecting more intelligent ones for breeding.
Regularly inject objectives or problems into their environment that must be solved with both group work, some level of coordination, and use of their environment. Create a powerful rain shower and show videos of people making a lean to, or some shit like that.

>>6192022
>genetics prove racial differences
Not to the extent that you can say black people are lazy or stupid or fast runners.

The genetic difference of skin colour is the same as the genetic difference between different eye colours. Biology doesn't support racism and never has done.

Go away and actually read a genetics textbook. And race is pretty much considered a false division anyway, even the wikipedia articles highlight that scientists do not consider that there are 'races' of humanity.

It's socially constructed 'in-out' group mentality. It's bullshit and you're being intellectually dishonest and you know it. Where are we /pol?

>>6192227
Exactly, I'd expect this kind of intellectual dishonesty from /pol, not /sci.

>>6193585
Evolution takes thousands of years, you aren't selecting for anything in slavery.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

>>6194456
You're using pseudo-science to support your own ideology, there is nothing innate in human nature that means we must be left or right.

>>6194773

>being this ignorant in 2013

>>6194773
No, its not. Race is perfectly fucking real and its a description of groups of people who lived and bred more amongst themselves than otherwise for most of human history thus developing distinct physical and as would be argued by those whod say it affects behavior behavioral characteristics and tendencies.
Claiming race does not exist is like a toned down version of claiming all breeds of dog are the same.(In the physical sense at least. Mental is a perfectly sensible thing to consider that should be researched, but there is no evidence for it as of yet. I dont personally think it to be the case myself even.)

>>6194773

This book, biological facts, and massive statistical data disagree with you.

>>6194785
Look at the time scale of that book.

You, and the other people in this thread are claiming that in less than 150 years, we have created and overcome 10,000 years worth of evolution. Do you not see how stupid of a claim that is?

Oh and the very 'traits' that you and others claim to be genetic, they just happen to coincide with common stereotypes too? Next you'll tell me there's a gene that makes southern black's like fried chicken and watermelon or that white Americans have some gene that ensure that they, and they alone have a propensity to obesity. I am aware that there is a potential genetic link to obesity, but its isn't unique to white America.

>>6194783
It takes thousands of years for evolutionary differences to have macro effects, even longer on the scale of an entire species. I'm telling you, 'race' in biology is a typical oversimplification of the facts.

It's far more complex than that and to divide on the basis of skin colour is arbitrary and you know it.

>>6194790
>You, and the other people in this thread are claiming that in less than 150 years

>implying all racial differences are only 150 years old

kek

>>>>>>>>>>/pol

>>6194791
>It takes thousands of years for evolutionary differences to have macro effects,
And humans have lived without easy transportation over great distances reproducing mostly within their own groups for multiple thousands of years.
Race exists.
At the least as a description of physical characteristics pertaining to certain groups of peoples.

>>6194797
It is only within the last few thousand years that we all moved to the other continents. There has been time for some, but not much or anything beyond statistical irrelevant genetic differences to occur. There is a reason we are all classed as homo sapien and no sub species have been classed in modern biology, its because they don't exist in any real sense aren't supported by scientific evidence.

>>6194800
A few thousand years is enough to create groups of peoples with distinct physical characteristics from one another, slavs being different from africans being different from american natives being different from east asians.
Im not saying shit about what level of difference is appropriate, whether sub species should be termed or not, im saying that 'race' damn well does exist completely irrefutably as at LEAST a description of groups of peoples who developed distinct characteristics in, relative to the ease of travel in modern society, 'isolation'
And if youre going to claim that doesnt exist, you'll be attempting to use scientific 'fact' to completely fly in the face of obscene amounts of data.

>>6194800
>It is only within the last few thousand years that we all moved to the other continents
>last few hundred years....


Homo sapiens have lived on different continents for the past 40,000 years.

If we go by the OOA model then it was 60-70,000 years ago that they diverged.

>>6194806
>Homo sapiens have lived on different continents for the past 40,000 years.
Sounds too big of a number, got a source?

>>6194807


http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110127/D9L0V1284.html

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112

>the time depth of the tree (haplogroups A3-R) was about 101-115 thousand years, and the lineages found outside Africa dated to 57-74 thousand years, both as expected. In addition, we dated a striking Paleolithic male lineage expansion to 41-52 thousand years ago and the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes. In all, we provide a nearly 10-fold increase in the number of Y markers with phylogenetic information, and novel historical insights derived from placing them on a calibrated phylogenetic tree.

>>6194806
Hundred years of industrial revolution =/= thousands of years of natural selection, otherwise we'd all have evolved to like sulphur dioxide and other toxic chemicals the IR produced. Come on, you know what you're claiming has no basis in fact.

We remain one species and there are no statistically significant genetic sub species. You're endowing physical characteristics some special genetic status when the variation itself is tiny and not enough to claim a new sub set. I'll say again, the genetic difference between skin colours is the same as between eye colours.

>>6194812

No one claimed the industrial revolution was the sole reason for genetic differences....refer

>>6194810
>>6194785

>>6192087
You can be religious and believe in evolution as many Catholics and other Christians do. One does not necessarily contradict the other (although atheism seems to fit more easily with evolution in my personal opinion).

Anyways, saying someone wears a fedora is not an argument, and you're a faggot for using it.

Check out Transhumanism

/pol/ ruined 4chan.
Seriously.

>>6194822

Carleton University cancels Cystic Fibrosis Charity; says disease mainly affects “white people” and isn't "diverse" enough.

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/11/25/carleton-cancels-shinerama-says-disease-only-affects-%E2%80%9Cwhite-people%E2%80%9D-2/

>>6194829
Makes sense actually. I would rather try to cure a disease which can effect more people.

>>6194829

Lesser Response to Heart Medication in Black as Compared with White Patients

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105033441802

>mfw even drugs are becoming racist and intolerant

>>6194839
It seems like in that case, the blacks are the ones being intolerant.

>>6192022

>Is biology the most taboo science

Only because our society and world relies on taboos and lies to keep it from falling apart.

Our society is build in a way that it contradicts human nature.

>>6194429
I guess you did not care to read the thread.
>>6193458
Abiogenesis is the antithesis to biogenesis

Biogenesis is the scientific law that has been demonstrated numerous times, and has never once been dis-proven.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that sounds to me a lot like spontaneous generation.Considering wiki chose to link to it from the page of spontaneous generation would lead me to believe I am not the only one who thinks this.
Regardless abiogenesis is having faith in theoretical evidence in the face of empirical evidence.
All physical evidence supports biogenesis, abiogenesis has no evidence save that we are here.

While abiogenesis would explain how life got here, that does not in its-self make it true.

This is exactly why I posted >>6194423
I find it funny because
People are willing to believe theoretical evidence despite empirical evidence when it comes to abiogenesis.(what I mean to say is the evidence is against abiogenesis)
But when It comes to god. These same people refuse theoretical evidence, in the absence of any empirical evidence.(what I mean by this is there is no empirical evidence that says god cannot or does not exist)

Why is it logical to believe in something that requires you to ignore the evidence, but not logical to believe something that does not require you to ignore the evidence?

>>6194996
What's the evidence against abiogenesis you keep talking about?

>>6194996
>All physical evidence supports biogenesis, abiogenesis has no evidence save that we are here.
I'd say that autocatalytic RNA sets forming spontaneously from short strands of RNA is rather strong evidence for abiogenesis..

>>6195006
See for example:

http://www.jsystchem.com/content/4/1/3

It's extremely strong evidence for abiogenesis and RNA world in particular. Other lines of research have already shown how short RNA polymers can come about abiotically..

>>6194996
well no abiogenesis does have basis in what this anon>>6195006
here said,and the miller urey experiment weher the building blocks of life were made experimentally in conditions of earth billions of years ago.

>>6193401
What would be the point? Let's say you expose black people as being genetically inferior as you so desire. What next?

>>6193360
>Stephen C. Meyer

>>6195009
>DNA pioneer Dr Watson, who discovered the double helix with Briton Francis Crick, has been roundly condemned for saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

If we could look past the taboo, maybe we could come about policies that would actually help Africans?

>>6194407
The Bible is fairy take written by kikes to control the stupid goys

Literally everything about modern science proves your retarded desert religion WRONG

>>6195004
Biogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
"The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things,"

"That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation."

Why do you guys think I just make shit up?

>>6195006
So RNA Generated RNA
RNA is a prerequisite kinda like life is a prerequisite for life.

>>6195008
Someone can try and create something in a lab
Therefore it can happen of its own accord

I can try and bake a cake in the kitchen
Therefore it can happen of its own accord

Can you see how your logic is flawed.
Also abiogenesis has never been demonstrated.
Even if amino acids could form that would not prove they did or that amino acids could then evolve into rna and then evolve into life

The evidence we get from genetics and dna suggest that it would be almost impossible for something so complex to form on its own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

>>6195016
The big bang theory actually says the universe began to exist.
Theists have no problem with this. God created it.
Atheists have a big problem. If something began to exist it was caused.
It is so much of a problem that some atheists are now saying the universe came from nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

If the big bang is true. The universe began to exist. Some atheists would have me believe that it came from nothing and was caused by nothing.

>>6194564
>>6194564
> Kind of like how Hitler had a bad understanding of evolution and used it as a justification for his acts.

>>6195016
>Literally everything about modern science proves your retarded desert religion WRONG

pic related

>>6195017
>So RNA Generated RNA
>RNA is a prerequisite kinda like life is a prerequisite for life.
And as I already pointed out, other lines of research have already shown how short RNA polymers can come about abiotically

check for example
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010cosp...38.3251D

>>6194559
>dat generalization

I'm an atheist, and i never gave 2 fucks about anyone's beliefs, nor have i ever tried to argue with anyone about it, or force it on anyone else. I also dress normally and have a girlfriend.

The fact that you think atheism defines a person just shows how ignorant you are.

>>6195030
And as I have shown. The odds are stacked against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0 [Embed]

>>6195017
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

that is not evidence, it is a law, laws simple describe, descriptions are not evidence against abiogenesis.

>Therefore it can happen of its own accord
Yes it can, that was the wholepoint of the experiment, it CAN do it of its own accord.


>Even if amino acids could form that would not prove they did or that amino acids could then evolve into rna and then evolve into life
well yes, again, they could, there is no barrier other time.

>If something began to exist it was caused.
No, because the big bang wasnt the beginning of the universe, tehre are many ways the universe can have created itself or have been in an eternal cycle, or even part of an even larger universe.

>>6195036
just add tot his
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

>>6195017
UnLike your Kike god, the big bang theory has theoretical and empirical evidence for it.

New theories also answer why life is here, the universe is alive and reproduces. We are merely cells within the body.

>>6195030
And as I have shown. The odds are against this happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

>>6195036
>that is not evidence
biogenesis is the observation that living things come only from other living things.
If that is not science I don't know what is.
We have only ever seen life come from life, we have never seen life come from non life, therefore life comes from life.
> tehre are many ways the universe can have created itself

Yeah sure something comes from noting.
You sir are an idiot.

>>6195041
I never disputed the big bang.
If you read my post I was actually using that as evidence.

>>6192022
>Genetics = racial differences
I haven't met a geneticist who didn't think the whole race bullshit was, well, bullshit.

>>6192067
>>6192083
But biology is not solely about the human body my daft friends, far from it.

>>6195043

>biogenesis

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


>Universe without cause


We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero. Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001). For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle (Steinhardt and Turok 2002) or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew (Seife 2002).


>calculation odds

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

>>6195051
>We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero. Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001). For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle (Steinhardt and Turok 2002) or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew (Seife 2002)

Sounds like speculation to me
>Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end.
If there were an infinite number of days before today today would have never came.


The calculation odds
If you watched the 7 minute video he talks about how he calculated the odds accounting for possible combinations vs combinations that work to create life.

>>6195006
No it doesn't. Get off of /sci/ if you don't want to science.

>All this loose understanding of genetics
>This creationism bullshit
/pol/ ruins every board it touches.

>>6194839
Yeah not related to their lifestyle or diet at all. Why do /pol/tards and simple-minded people in general think everything is innate?

>>6195055
>Sounds like speculation to me
They all have strong supporting evidences actually.

Infinity also dosent man what you think it does

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[5][6] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious, repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

>calculation
still wrong,
-Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex and protein-building systems can also be simple


The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

(you need to read this again.)

-The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life

-The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Genetic engineering and artificial uterus coming soon. Race will be aesthetically. Nothing more

>>6194485
>>6194487
>Implying butthurt

He's a retard for saying it, and i'm calling him out on it.
Don't even fucking kid yourself, if an opposite statement was said with atheism, you would throw a bitch fit.

>>6195063
>They all have strong supporting evidences actually.

Where is this evidence?

>Infinity also dosent man what you think it does
Infinity is an abstract concept describing something without any limit.
Do you have a different definition?

The cyclic model
" each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce."

Did you know we have evidence that the universe will expand out forever and eventually suffer heat death?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

>-The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Are you suggesting the primordial soup was of an infinite size?

>>6195087
>Calling him out
>By shitposting with memes

>>6195087
Hey kid. This is /sci/. If you really get this butthurt over the fact that someone says something negative about religion than you need to get out. Some religious people get mad at evolution. This is a fact.

>>6195098
People get mad may be a fact, but evolution is not a fact its a theory.

I believe in variation, but I do not believe all life has a common ancestor.

also not mad if you were wondering.
also not the guy you were replying to

>>6195095
He didn't make an argument, he made an extremely wrong, short statement.
To respond to his idiocy, an insult is fitting.

>>6195098
>this butthurt
You seem to have poor reading comprehension.

>Some religious people get mad at evolution = Evolution - contradict all religion

Okay, mate.

>>6195103
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]

scientific theory>law.

>>6195103
>People get mad may be a fact, but evolution is not a fact its a theory.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

ok, ok, I have been getting trolled.

>>6195109
He's right though. Evolution is only a gauss, not even an euler.

>>6195105
> he made an extremely wrong, short statement.
Are you saying evolution wasn't taboo because of its religious implications? Are you really just going to lie?

>>6195107
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong
"Most theories are eventually consigned to the rubbish heap, but this is scientific business as usual"

Tell me again how theory is fact.

>>6195109
see above

>>6195105
>Evolution doesn't prove religion wrong
Really? Theists during the time of Origin of species to present day would disagree with you. In fact it is their whole reason for denying its existence.

>>6195093
>Where is this evidence?
they are all in concordance withe evrything we so far know, for instance the multiverse theory

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/

also

-Hawking, Stephen, 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam.
-Seife, Charles, 2002. Eternal-universe idea comes full circle. Science 296: 639.
-Steinhardt, P. J. and N. Turok, 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science 296: 1436-1439.

>Did you know we have evidence that the universe will expand out forever and eventually suffer heat death?
more than way the universe could be, i agree, but regardless, nothing says the universe needs a creator.

One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into the argument from incredulity.

>Are you suggesting the primordial soup was of an infinite size?
No, but that innumerable trials would be going on all across the planet and even the universe simultaneously.

>>6195111
>Are you saying evolution wasn't taboo because of its religious implications?
No, not at all.

>Are you really just going to lie?
No, i'm saying one of his "points" was immensely idiotic and plainly wrong.

>>6195056
>not even trying to dispute
Get the fuck out of sci kiddo

>>6195116
>Misusing the term theory
>Getting theory and hypothesis mixed up

>>6195116
>theguardian
ok.


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]


examples of theory are for instance germ theory, bacteria can cause illness.

>>6195117
>God cannot have designed evolution
Except a large percentage believe this.

>>6195120
How was it wrong? All it seems to me is that you got mad and used memes to shitpost. No one shitposts with memes unless they are angry.

>>6195116
they also got hypothesis and scientific theory mixed up, common mistake.,

>>6195126
Which means they don't understand how natural selection works. If they read Origin of species they would understand how that would not be compatible with "God did it".

>>6195116
>Getting hypothesis and theory mixed up
This always pisses me off.

>>6195133
scientists should change the word scientific theory to soemthing else, people with no knowledge of science always get common use of theory and scientific theory mixed up.

>>6195134
But the thing is it is taught in every single science class. Seriously, every single science class I have taken from middle school to college made sure you knew the difference between a hypothesis and theory. Do they just choose to forget this information?

>>6195127
If he is to post at the level of a meme;
>hurr durr creationists are retards cuz i've seen the universe.
Then I see no need to counter him in a refined manner.

>>6195131
Except there is nothing that directly counters "God did it."

>Genetics = racial differences
Why are people on a science board denying this?

To be clear on what the debate is: different races score differently on standardised testing (Be it IQ, SATs, ACT etc.). There is no question about this.

The question is what is causing this
1. Genetics only
2. Genetics and Environment
3. Environment only.

There is very little evidence for 3., but there's plenty of evidence for 2.

>>6195137
Most people are idiots, need to make the word idiot proof.

>>6195119
>nothing says the universe needs a creator
Let me refer you back to the big bang
>>6195017
The big bang theory actually says the universe began to exist.
Theists have no problem with this. God created it.
Atheists have a big problem. If something began to exist it was caused.

If the universe needs no creator then it created its self out of nothing.
This is highly illogical and implausable.

>>6195125
Again I have no problem with variation.
I have a problem with the idea of all life having a common ancestor.
It has been scientifically demonstrated that there is variation.
It has not been demonstrated that life could create its self, nor that all life is related.

>>6195130
>>6195133
If most theory's end up discarded one cannot assume that they are all true facts.
see>>6195116

>>6195138
>hurr durr creationists are retards cuz i've seen the universe.
That wasn't his argument at all. You are extremely insecure. Oh and there is no "God did it" because natural selection would have happened even without gods intervention. It is something that naturally happens when something replicates indefinitely with a chance of failure.

>>6195140
IQ is bullshit. Everyone on /sci/ knows this. IQ is supposed to determine genetic potential but has been proven time and time again to be altered by environmental factors.

>>6195144
>would have happened even without gods intervention
> It is something that naturally happens

The point of most religious takes on evolution is that God created such a property.
He "made" evolution happen.

>>6195148
There's no doubt that environmental factors influence IQ. With that said it is clear that genetic factors are HUGELY important. And therefore I bring it back to the question of what is causing racial IQ differences...

>1. Genetics only
>2. Genetics and Environment
>3. Environment only.

All the evidence is that number 2 is the correct one.
Note I'm not just referring to IQ

>>6195150
He may have created genes or maybe even the universe but natural selection is natural no matter the creator. It would be like saying god created math.

>>6195143
are you being purposefully obtuse?
are you trying to annoy me by repeating things i have already refuted?

>Let me refer you back to the big bang
yes, if you understood even basic cosmology or even philosophy you would realize attributing cause and effect to something that existed before cause and effect is RETARDED.


>If the universe needs no creator then it created its self out of nothing.
there ways it can have made itself, and tehre are ways in can have always been but in different states, much like god.
again applying logic of what you see in normal life to the inception of the universe is STUPID.

>nor that all life is related.

yes it has, for instance we are 70% genetically identical to fruit flies, 96% to chimpanzees

>If most theory's end up discarded one cannot assume that they are all true facts.
THE ARTICLE GOT HYPOTHESIS AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY MIXED UP.
scientific theory is not categorically seperable from fact, the article is incorrect in the sue of teh words.

>>6195153
>With that said it is clear that genetic factors are HUGELY important.
Explain how it is clear.

>>6195156
Seriously?
Are you really arguing that genetics have NOTHING - absolute nothing - to do with IQ
It's hard to take such a suggestion seriously. To be clear you're implying that a very stupid person could obtain an IQ of anything, say 160, by just working hard and being raised right

>>6195158
>Are you really arguing that genetics have NOTHING - absolute nothing - to do with IQ
You have yet to explain how it is amazingly clear that the genetic differences between race correlate to IQ differences.

>>6195158
Something who works hard and is raised right wouldn't be stupid.

>>6195162
There have been countless studies done on the topic, and all of them have supported this view. See "Minnesota Adoption Study" which takes some environmental factors into account. In addition this is the belief of the majority of scientists

>>6195165
>There have been countless studies done on the topic
Want to post some sources?

>>6195155
>there ways it can have made itself, and tehre are ways in can have always been but in different states
>again applying logic of what you see in normal life to the inception of the universe is STUPID
So something can come from nothing, and logic is stupid.
Sounds to me like you are a complete idiot.

>we are 70% genetically identical to fruit flies, 96% to chimpanzees
Yeah we are made up of the same basic ingredients so there would be similarities in life. This does not prove we all came from the same ancestor.

>THE ARTICLE GOT HYPOTHESIS AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY MIXED UP.

So no scientific theory has ever been dis-proven?

>>6195166
"Minnesota Adoption Study"
Since you apparently haven't heard of google here's the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>6195155
If scientific theory cannot be false, why then do we test them?

>>6195167
>This does not prove we all came from the same ancestor
Genome=/= chemical makeup.

>So something can come from nothing, and logic is stupid.
yes, or sort of like how god has no beginning.
Ive already provided sources, links and citations to show that a universe without a creator is plausible and is in concordance withe everything known.

>So no scientific theory has ever been dis-proven?

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

>>6195171
im either surrounded by idiots or trolls, which are you sir?

>>6195173
>Genome=/= chemical makeup.
Are you implying that genomes use a wide variety of ingredients based on the variety of life.
Because I thought all life on earth was carbon based.
>Carbon forms the key component for all known naturally occurring life on Earth.
The two most important characteristics of carbon as a basis for the chemistry of life, are that it has four valence bonds and that the energy required to make or break a bond is just at an appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of arbitrarily long complex molecules and polymers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life

>>6195178

>same ancestor

All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

>Because I thought all life on earth was carbon based.
Humans for isnatnce are about 80% genetically identical to mice, notice GENETICALLY, there genome is very very similar, chemically, they are basically identical in their chemical composition, their genome=/=chemical composition.

>>6195183
going to add

-Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
also
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

>>6195164

>Something who works hard and is raised right wouldn't be stupid.

Are you saying that any variability in intelligence has to do with cultural upbringing? That's hilarious.
Say someone with fragile X syndrome?

Lacking FMRP would not affect how people with fragile X syndrome are capable of learning?

>>6195183
sorry for the delay I went to church.

I still do not see how the similarity in genetics could not have come from the similarity in chemistry.

Its like saying all beer is similar therefore all beer has a common manufacturer.

We know that this is not the case. We know that similar ingredients combined in a similar way form similar substance. This does not prove that they had to have come from the same place. Only re affirm that they use similar ingredients, yields similar results.
If all life on earth uses the same ingredients, then life should be very similar in some ways. It does not prove that life has to have a common ancestor, only that life has to have a common composition. Which it does.

>>6195538
genome means hereditary information, just link up the dots.

>>6195541
This proves what exactly?

Hereditary information. I assume this means information that is passed on to the offspring.

Budweiser has a recipe that they pass on to the new CEO
So does Samuel Adams
I bet these recipes are very similar. For they both use water, yeast, hops, and barley.

Does that mean that Budweiser and Samuel Adams was once the same company?
It must because they are passing down similar information.


You are saying that the chemical composition has nothing to do with the substance it composes. I still say it has everything to do with the substance.It also explains how we are genetically similar to trees, without being ancestrally related.

If you claim that all life has a common ancestor.

>>6195572
here freind, find a type of evidence you like, click on it, then find thousands of citations and examples

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>>6195576
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I have already stated that life containing the same ingredients should be similar. And since all life on earth is carbon based, it should therefore be similar.

You are not going to sway my thought by showing these similarities.

>>6195589
you ahvent looked at it properly, they even have virus DNA that was contracted millions of years ago.

>>6195589
anotenr example
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080318094610.htm

The paper shows that milk-protein genes arose in a common ancestor of all existing mammalian lineages and preceded the loss of the genes that encoded egg proteins.


You can even use human genes and insert them into fruit fly genes and theyw ork the same.

>>6195589
anoter example


In fact, common Alu transpositions have been demonstrated to be reliable markers of common descent in paternity cases and in criminal forensics (Novick et al. 1993; Novick et al. 1995; Roy-Engel et al. 2001). Most importantly, in the human α-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations (Sawada et al. 1985).


More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997).
There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989).


In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000).

>>6195591
>they even have virus DNA that was contracted millions of years ago.

so

What conclusion do you draw from such information?
That DNA has existed for millions of years.
We can detect DNA.
How does one get from "they have virus DNA" to "all life has a common ancestor"

I just don't see it.

>>6195601
How many times do I have to say.
I believe the common chemistry plays the biggest role in the similarity between life on earth.
see
>>6195572
>>6195538
>>6195178

This type of evidence does not lead me to believe we have a common ancestor, for I know we have a common composition i.e. Carbon

>>6195609
are you being obtuse on purpose?


There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000).


you really have no idea what a genome is.

>>6195609
just read this alone


As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.

>>6195615
>the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical

And they are both carbon based life forms thus the similarity between them.

Ford and Chevy both use similar designs
Does this lead one to believe they are the same company, or that they sprang forth from the same company?


Why is it your logic applies to life, but when we apply it to beer, or cars, it does not hold true?
Because it is bad logic my friend.

>>6195624
>The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 1049 different sequences that could code for this protein.
Read it.

>>6195629
So 2 species differ slightly, where a vast difference could have been.

I would venture to say that since there are 1049 different sequences, that most of those could be found in nature. Any one of them could be compared to humans to show the vast difference, in an argument against a common ancestor.
Do you know of any life that codes differently than humans oh this particular sequence?

Given that their are only 1049 different sequences for that particular protein. Similarities amongst life should arise, based on the limitations of chemistry.

I still stand by my belief that the similarity amongst life on earth arises from a similar composition.

>>6195649
no, they would all end up the same way,the reason why you believe the chemical composition is logical, but unfortunately based on a lack of knowledge as to what exactly a genome is.

lets try another method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox#Hox_genes

A homeobox is a DNA sequence found within genes that are involved in the regulation of patterns of anatomical development (morphogenesis) in animals, fungi and plants.


almost all organisms have this same sequence, not due to chemical composition,because there are trillions of otehr ways to sequence it, but because they all have this in common due to descent.

>>6195649
I would like to note that my logic holds true even for other things.
Budweiser is similar to Sam Adams
Because they use similar ingredients, combined in a similar way. Not because they came from the same source.
>>6195656
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox#Hox_genes
Oh look its more of life having similarities. Even though you know full well by now that this will not sway my belief.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."- Albert Einstein

>>6195673
>Because they use similar ingredients, combined in a similar way. Not because they came from the same source.
but there are trillions upon trillions of combinations

>Oh look its more of life having similarities
nop identical, you can put human genes that code for certain things and they will work for fruit flies.

>belief
i know, because you have a preexisting prejudice, reagrdless, i tried.

goodbyw

>>6195656
>not due to chemical composition,because there are trillions of otehr ways to sequence it

All life is carbon based and therefore you cannot say that it is not due to chemical composition.

>>6195156

>>6195685
chemical=/= genomic
simply because its carbon,hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorous etc......
with a single gene having a millions of sequences, your idea works if genes were a lot less complex, but they arent

>>6195679
>i know, because you have a preexisting prejudice, reagrdless, i tried.

Implying I came to my beliefs without logic and reason.

I have demonstrated my reasoning.

>>6195691
This complexity to me shows intelligent design see >>6195043
its the embedded video

>>6195712
didnt the otehr anon show that the calculation thing was bullshit?
like he showed abiogenesis and biogenesis didnt contradict?
like he showed evolution was true?

>>6195716
He claimed such, but nothing was dis-proven.

>>6195719
>Claimed
so you still think its "just a theory"
i mean he quite clearly showed your idea of calculation to be bullshit, he did it about 3 times.

>>6195691

>>6195739

>>6195729
So you think that life is not so complex that it had to be designed, but it is complex enough to disprove my theory that the chemical composition is the source for similarity amongst life on earth?
>>6195691
>your idea works if genes were a lot less complex, but they arent

Well that's just handy.

Complexity disproves my theory, and the lack thereof disproves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE

>>6195745

>>6195745
This is having your cake and eating it too.

Either life is complex or it isn't. you can't claim that both are true.

>>6195745


here friend

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
this will explain it alot easier

>but it is complex enough to disprove my

Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.

>>6195748
not posting the gif

>>6195749
>>6195749

>>6195745
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
look anon it even has pictures!

>>6195759
Why not both?

>>6194556
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression

Nope, most genes usually never get activated, this phenomen is still unknown to why certain genes does not get activated.

but yeah I agree, genes does a lot to how you act as a human but, I don't think it should be a legitimate reason to generalize every race, judge the individual instead.

>>6195753
>>6195760

Similarities do not sway my belief, for they are required in my theory.
See entire fucking thread.

I stand by the thought that similarities amongst life arise from similarities amongst composition.

Since all life is carbon based, similarities will be present.

Unless you have fossil evidence of some half plant half animal, I will never believe all life on earth has a common ancestor.

>>6195770
>similarities
>96% identical
Okay anon :)

>>6195776
Carbon is 100% identical to carbon

fuck off

ITT: /pol/ack comes to /sci/, gets gangraped by facts

Best thread in a long time

>>6195779
>still thinks chemical composition dictates genomic composition
Anon, genes are amde from all sorts of elemnts with many different functional groups, there are limits to how similar they can be genetically anon.
i mean for fuck sake anon,open a book


Humans contain many ERVs that comprise nearly 8% of the genome.[26] Humans and chimps share seven different instances of virogenes while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.[27]


the chances of this happening without common descent are nonexistent, were talking about millions of genetics strands all in the same locationand thats just for humans and chimps.

anon humans even have genes to make fucking egg shells, you really have to increase your understanding of genomics or im afraid youll die stupid.
this is one example of billions of different proteins anon, and we have 96% of our genes like that of a chimp.

look, keep being wrong, just dont pretend you have any basis.
/thread im out.

>the chances of this happening without common descent are nonexistent
There exists a chance. A common designer, using common ingredients.

Its funny how you use chimps in your example, but if it is true all life originated from a common ancestor. Then you should be able to show the same true of trees, or snails.
Why not use these examples to prove your belief.

Though even if you could. I would still tell you all life shares common ingredients and is therefore similar.

>>6195805

>a common designer

And who designed the designer? Seems like your 'explanation' poses more questions than it answers

>>6195805
>Then you should be able to show the same true of trees, or snails.
i can.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/12/22_asymmetry.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10585766

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/apr/15/genetics-embryos-and-stem-cells

>I would still tell you all life shares common ingredients and is therefore similar.
because you dont understand genomics....no, you dont want to understand genomics.

>>6195812
God is eternal.

"A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.13 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed14 and that God created time,15 along with the entire universe,16 being described as an expanding universe.17 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

>>6195817
hahahahaha i remember you couldnt deal with the idea the universe was eternal, strange how you can deal with the idea of god having no beginning

>>6195817
>God is eternal.

That's not an explanation. You're 'proving' a claim with a new claim you also need to prove.

I guess they never really told you this on /pol/

>>6195817
Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? "Intelligent design" theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.

There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

The "form follows function" principle is the opposite from what we expect from known design.

>>6195816
>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/12/22_asymmetry.shtml
damn that was quick
also snails bravo

Alas I still contend this does not prove we are related ancestrally to snails.
>>6195819
It is not illogical.
>>6195823
whats the matter anon cannot into logic
The big bang tells us the universe began to exist, and therefore must be caused.
There is nothing that demonstrates that god began to exist. He has always existed and therefore does not need a creator.

>>6195829
>must be caused
already been explained that your opinion is incorrect.
also read this
There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

>>6195829

>thinks logic is the Oracle of Delphi that can prove literally anything
>doesn't know logic depends highly on what you put into it
>doesn't know logic only proves that a concept is consistent with itself
>doesn't know you need both logic and empiricism to have an idea be taken seriously

Wow, you get all your information off of /pol/, don't you? You use something you don't even have a basic understanding of

>>6195833
Oh yes I have heard that the universe came from nothing, and was caused by nothing.
I still contend that NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING.

>There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design

Humans and chimps have thousands of things in common does not disprove they were not designed by the same creator.

>>6195837

>thinks logic is the Oracle of Delphi that can prove literally anything
Have I tried to logically prove everything? No I have not.
>doesn't know logic depends highly on what you put into it
What ingredient am I missing?
>doesn't know logic only proves that a concept is consistent with itself
Could it not prove something inconsistent?
>doesn't know you need both logic and empiricism to have an idea be taken seriously
I have used both logic and empiricism to make my claims.

Clearly it is you that does not know what it is you are talking about.

>>6195852
Humans and chimps have thousands of things in common does not disprove they were not designed by the same creator.
should read
Humans and chimps have thousands of things in common does not disprove they were designed by the same creator.
or
Humans and chimps having thousands of things in common does not disprove a common designer

I apologize for the error.

>>6195852
>NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING.
never quantum physics i take it.
regardless i digress, ive already shown the universe very easily requires no creator.

>Humans and chimps have thousands of things in common does not disprove they were not designed by the same creator.
of course, you can always believe despite evidence showing that a creator isnt needed, i completely agree, just dont say common descent is bullshit, when clearly it isnt hence:


>There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common -- the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

People have always used religion as a crutch, and i dont intend to to ask you to let go of it.

>Have I tried to logically prove everything? No I have not.

You certainly seem to

>What ingredient am I missing?

Have you ever heard of GIGA?

>Could it not prove something inconsistent?

Yes, it can, but that wasn't my point, was it? Logic only uses the propositions you put into it. It only works by definitions, not something you've actually observed

>I have used both logic and empiricism to make my claims.

Oh really? I'm still waiting for that empirical evidence you have

>>6195837
>Doesn't even know that logic that can be falsified will make a bad idea

>>6195852
>NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING.
give this a read, you need an education.

>>6195866

I'm really interested how this works, please elaborate

OP here. Just so u know most of the threads I make get 200+ replies...

Also IQ is very heritable. Abiogenesis is the best hypothesis we have for origin of life. Positing a magic ghost casting a spell to design life is pointless and never verifiable.

Racial differences exist since human populations diverged some 60000 years ago...in fact 10, 000 years is sufficient to create vast racial differences.

>>6195863
>You certainly seem to
Thinks we have discussed everything itt
>Have you ever heard of GIGA?
as in 1.21 gigawatts
>
Oh really? I'm still waiting for that empirical evidence you have

Perhaps you missed my posts about the big bang.

>>6195867
"Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. It is associated with ancient Greek cosmology, such as is presented not just in the opus of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every internal system – there is no break in between a world didn't exist, since it couldn't be created ex nihilo in the first place."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

>>6195876
>philosophy
im talking empirically child.
seriously, read it, you might like it.

>>6195876

I meant GIGO, sorry

>>6195879
well empirically no one has ever demonstrated that something could come from nothing.

no one ever observes this in our experience of reality.

also
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it merely changes form.

>>6195884
Garbage in garbage out?

>>6195870
It is philosophy.

Philosophy is not relevant to science, I was banned once for this.

Search for Karl popper's papers for falsification on google. I won't bother translating everything into english to find the paper that support my claim.

>>6195897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

>our reality
if i told you the earth as round your logic would say why dont we fall off teh earth, using logic to areas where are our logic is worse than useless, is stupid.

>>6195900

You realize that the concept of falsifiability means that the whole concept of God is basically one big pseudo statement, right?

Also, falsifiability isn't flawless. It doesn't mean that verafiability should never be used in anything ever

>>6195876
There can be no evidence that a ghostly alien designed life.

Its absurd and unfalsifiable. Explaining nothing at all....why is this even a theoretical possibility? It isn't.

>>6195897

>Garbage in garbage out?

Yep

>>6195906
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times
>but only for small times
The universe has existed billions of years
>if i told you the earth as round your logic would say why dont we fall off teh earth, using logic to areas where are our logic is worse than useless, is stupid.

why would my logic say that?
Implying I do not know about gravity.
>>6195912
We cannot prove it empirically therefore it must be false.
This is bad logic indeed.
>>6195913
>garbage

Yes I do filter out the garbage.

>biology the most taboo science

Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig:
Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969

I always suspected that whiteys evolved from pigs.
That would be consistent with the /sci/ experience.. dominant pig genes.

>>6195925

>Yes I do filter out the garbage.

That's pretty hard using only logic

>>6195925
>why would my logic say that?
pardon me, lets say to someone 5k years ago, the logic of the now, of this state of existence dosent work in forinstance the quantum world where the same thing can be in 2 places at once, or move faster than light.
read the book and it will explain how something from nothing works.

>>6195925
Its not false. Its undeterminable and explains nothing. Its a useless hypothesis scientifically...it may comfort you..but its not rational to hold.

>>6195928

>dailymail

>>6195928
>Dailymail
oh boy.

Every phenomena is created by a unique spirit. Each phenomena is governed by a different spirit.

And each spirit has free will to create and destroy as they wish.

God only judges these powerful spirits. The phenomena they create like bacteria, stars, humans go unjudged.

>>6195908
I was agreeing with you nigga

>>6195961
Each thought u have is designed by a spirit. How can thoughts come from nothing?

Each thought is created by a unique and different spirit.

>>6195960

Sorry, I'm sometimes on /pol/, where these idiots come from and I'm used to a circlejerk of shitty comments

>>6195932
Why then does my king James bible tell me the earth is a sphere? see >>6195021
If what you say is true. They would have had no empirical evidence to say the earth was a sphere, and logic does not bring us any closer to the correct answer. How then did they accurately state that the earth is a sphere. If neither evidence, nor logic leads us to that conclusion.
Using some of your logic, I conclude the bible has to have been divinely inspired.

How do you like that logic?

>>6195973
600 years before christ the greeks worked out the earth was spherical using trigonometry
really need to open a book.

>>6195977
Just because they figured it doesn't meam y bible is wrong.your logic is broken

>>6195982
Lightning is designed by god. You think lightning can come from non-lightning???

>>6195982
do you have down syndrome?
i never said the bible is wrong, i mean it is wrong (MUH METAPHORS) but i dont care.
i was talking about how it clearly isnt divinely inspired (spherical earth) when the greeks worked it out 600 years before god.

>>6195977
>>6195987

What of the other examples in said pic
>>6195021
Can they be concluded logically with out evidence?
If so logic needs no evidence.
If not the bible was divinely inspired see>>6195973

What say you now anon?

>>6195996
>earth spherical
already shown the greeks figured it out before god

>innumerable stars
how is this even...anything, anyone can figure this out, the greeks, vikings, some dude 10,000 years ago

>air has weight
also greeks

>light moves
can i have quote of bible? not sure about this one

>free float of earth
Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Job 38:4-6 refers to earth having a foundation and footings, in direct contradiction to the idea that it is unsupported. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars. Many verses throughout the Bible refer to a solid firmament.

There is no reason to believe that any of these passages are intended literally as representing Hebrew views of geography. A verse later in the chapter (Job 26:12) refers to Babylonian mythology, saying that God slew Rahab (= Tiamat). This is likely intended as no more than a denial of Babylonian mythology, in which Marduk created the cosmos from Tiamat's body. The reference to stretching the earth over nothing may similarly be a denial of another religion's views common at the time.

>wind blows cyclones
and water is wet

>valleys in sea
yeah known for ages, since people dived.

>source of life is blood
and the heart isnt?
the brain?pancreas?liver?nervous system?etc.....
cba with the rest

>>6195996
hey, look what i found

>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

refutes all claims

>>6195996

>If so logic needs no evidence.

1. All pigs can fly
2. Percy is a pig
Therefore
3. Percy can fly

Perfectly logical

>>6196034
>>If so logic needs no evidence.

Hence Christianity and religions.

>>6196019
In reading these "refutations" I do not find them to destroy the argument

>The earth is a sphere.
Extremely ancient cultures probably did believe in a flat earth. Observations that point to a rounded or spherical Earth pre-date most of the Bible.

Still does not show that was the prevailing belief at the time of the bible. Actually it says
>Extremely ancient cultures probably did believe in a flat earth.

>Innumerable stars
Alright so the part that was wrong with my pic was science then, and not the bible.

>Free float earth
Claimed science had no knowledge of this

>Invisible elements
Science was hardly ignorant on the subject

>Each star is different
Says this is true, but science should have known it.

>Light moves
Science had different ideas about this at the time

>Air has weight
says science knew about this at the time

>Wind
Says no one claimed that at the time.

>Blood Hey this one seems to confirm not refute the statement
There was certainly no concept of "blood as a nutrient transport system", the idea that blood circulates was not even suggested until the 12th century, and was not established until the 17th century (by William Harvey). The role of blood in the immune system was not established until the late 19th century.

>Ocean floor
The idea that the ocean floor is flat was made up

>Ocean contains springs this one also confirms the statement
Strangely this is actually fairly accurate

I say good job discrediting the statements of the pic.

You got most of them.
It's really a shame you did nothing to discredit the bible, only the statements made of science then. Its also a shame that you failed to deliver on the topic of blood as the source of life, and on the topic of the ocean containing springs.

I stand on my original argument having still 2 principals of which the bible knew, and science did not.

>>6196114
actually on further review I think
>Invisible elements
might also count towards credit.

>>6195906
bro what is your obsession with
Christian Bale

>>6196085
no, religion is based on logical fallacies, not ignorant logic.

I just wanted to say that I think science helps verify that there is a god.

http://www.godandscience.org/

Here is a website that seeks to prove god through science.

You can have faith in god, and still cling to science. For science is a part of his creation.
Atheists assume anyone with religion is ignorant of science, but that's just not the case.
I might refuse some ideas, when reason prevails, but I enjoy science very much.

>>6196034
>If so logic needs no evidence.
Sorry guys that was meant to be obviously incorrect.
So that
>If not the bible was divinely inspired
would be seen as true

I apologize for the trickery.

Nevertheless my original argument would hold true for the three statements not shown to be false.
>Invisible elements
>Blood
>Ocean springs

>>6196268
It's up to you to prove that, we can't refute non-refutable arguments about how magic plays a role in what might be wild guesses. Also, springs in the ocean? wtf.

>>6196291
I guess you missed out on>>6195973
I was trying to demonstrate the bible was divinely inspired.

How would you get random guesses?
These things were not asked of the bible, but told by it.

None of what the bible said was wrong, rather some of the claims of science then see >>6196114

>>6196313
So all species in the history of the world living side by side and the female being created by a rib and the whole of mankind descending from inbreeding at a lower capacity than what is considered possible, was not wrong?

>>6195191
>Are you saying that any variability in intelligence has to do with cultural upbringing?
Are you saying that it doesn't effect it? The simple fact that IQ has been raising over the years kind of proves this.

>>6195170
>"Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements. The natural parents of the black/black group also averaged a year less of education than those of the black/white group, which suggests an average difference between the groups in intellectual ability. There were also significant differences between the adoptive families of black/black and black/white children in father's education and mother's IQ."
This basically destroyed the controlled environment factor of the study.

>>6196345
The animals lived together was before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good an evil.

Before that time there was no death. So yes the animals lived together. You find this hard to believe, but have no trouble believing all life has a common ancestor. You also have no trouble believing that not only something but everything we know to exist came from and was caused by absolutely nothing.

The bible said that god made Adam from the dust of the earth.
Science confirms that we are carbon based life forms

Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known life forms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

If god exists he is all powerful, and would have no trouble getting animals to get along. Just as he had no trouble creating life out of dust.

tl/dr The bible stands correct.
Your ignorance of the bible does not invalidate it.
also
> mentions inbreeding
Thinks all life has a common ancestor

If it is hard for you to believe all humans had a common ancestor. i.e Adam, and Eve. How do you then think all life has a common ancestor?

Surely /sci/ likes Einstein.
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects". - Albert Einstein

>The child knows someone must have written those books.

Sounds to me like he believed in an all powerful being. AKA God.

I am in no way claiming he believed in the Christianity or any religion for that mater.

Personally it sounds to me that he did not want to believe in a god.
>"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."- Einstein
Unfortunately for him he knew too much of science to deny that such a being exists.
Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

>>6196638
Einstein's personal beliefs aren't thread or board related and they can't be used as evidence for anything.

>>6196696
Are you trying to tell me Albert Einstein's opinion is not relevant to /sci/ ?

I presented it as food for thought, not as proof of god.

Just trying to get people to think a bit.

If you don't like my posts feel free to hide them, or if you think I am violating the rules there is a report system in place.

>>6196728
>Are you trying to tell me [anyone]'s opinion is not relevant to /sci/ ?
Duh.

>>6196806
Why then does anyone post anything to this board?

Did you realize your statement >>6196696 was your opinion?
I am of the opinion that they are relevant to science.
It is also my opinion that more opinions than facts are posted on this board. Anyone care to attempt to prove/disprove this theory?

Why is it ok for you to post your opinion, but I should not post that of Einstein? Are you more knowledgeable of things concerning science than Albert Einstein?

>>6196820
That post post sure was a big hot opinion worthy of attention.