Evolution starts with the basic assumption that there is life, and goes from there. You did know that didn't you? I would hate to think you are arguing the wrong theory.
Evolution does not start there. Evolution has to explain the transformation from a nonliving form to living.
It has a model, it has assumptions and makes predictions.
Just like every other theory.
More importantly, it requires observable evidence and can be proved false.
It is a theory. A scientific theory, and a good one.
What makes it different from other theories is that we cannot go back a billion years and watch the eye evolve, for example.
Not that that is a major problem, because there is ample fossile evidence to show we evolved. It has also been pointed out that you cannot do modern biology or medicine without evolutionary theory.
We can also make logical arguments for how the eye can evolve - within the given model. Wow, just like scientific theories do!
And since we have models, and this new fangled thing called the digital computer, we can write code to test these models.
They can then criticise the models, and perform error analysis.
You know, the stuff researchers do all day when they are not playing on-line games and proving god doesn't exist. Oh, and buying stuff because they are all materialists. Oh, and hiding the analysis and criticisms in dry boring research tomes, where those pesky students and educators will never find them.
I think you exaggerate the matter quite a bit. First of all I have stated that I find microevolution, recombining current DNA, manipulation of current traits, even splicing traits out of one creature into another to all be valid science. I call this microevolution. Even the Catholic church will admit to this science and it is likely what your brother in law, a botanist, uses.
One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". Here's the original Latin:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.
So, given that you accept what you call "microevolution", which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor:
(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life has arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?
(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?
If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?
Maybe you simply believe (C) None of the above is the best explanation. But why shouldn't science classes teach the best that science has to offer now, even if a few people don't think it's "complete"? Science is, after all, about finding the best explanations we can -- not about quietly keeping everything to yourself until someday you miraculously reach perfection.
And if you don't object to evolution being taught, then why, when it's the best that science now has to offer regarding the origins of life, do you think evolution needs special, government-mandated criticisms? Why aren't students own questions good enough like in every other subject of study? What specific criticisms do you believe have earned the merit of special attention in science classrooms?
Secondly I posted a list of scientists in the earth and life sciences who do not believe evolution is a full explanation.
What they have to say isn't worth much until they can provide something better than what they criticize. Merely groaning over and over again that "Gee, this stuff just seems too complex to happen by chance!" doesn't cut it.
It's not like the "intelligent design" proponents have come up with anything even close to a vague mathematical outline for how to compute the likelihood of a cilia, or other structures, biological processes, and forms of life forming by chance. They just call these things "highly improbable" because they think about all the pieces and parts real hard and can't imagine useful intermediate steps leading to the end result.
Do we just take them at their word that cilia and eyeballs and anaerobic glycosis are "irreducibly complex", or, when we know that many amazing results can arise from simple self-organizing systems, do we strongly consider that the said "irreducible complexity" is merely a failure of human imagination to see and appreciate all of the possibilities?
That is also something I wish to emphasize myself. Evolution can explain somethings, but as the sole answer regarding origins of life it falls short.
I can say that wind and rain and other effects of erosion are responsible for wearing down a mountain. Is my theory a failure until I can draw you an exact picture of what the mountain used to look like, track the history of every boulder, rock, pebble, and grain of sand from its past location to its present location, and explain to you why the mountain wore down to into its particular present shape and not some other one? Of course not.
Yet when evolutionary theory doesn't spell out step-by-step how DNA or cilia came to be, when evolution doesn't provide a complete family tree of all species in ten-year snapshots for the past four billion years -- critics call evolution a failure. Has it occurred to you that they're simply creating irrational measures of success for evolutionary theory to which they wouldn't subject any other theory?
My fundamentalist friends, it's not science if you've already decided what your observations are going to find.
THAT is why creation 'science' will always be wrong. Evolutionary theory could be proven wrong tomorrow...but creation 'science' does not have the strength do it. Why?
Because it forages through legitimate scientific disciplines, clinging to facts that support its own (already decided) theories and dismissing the facts that do not.
Creationists do not merely argue that evolution is false, they argue against using the scientific method. And that position is a pretty tough one to take in 2003.
My fundamentalist friends, it's not science if you've already decided what your observations are going to find.
THAT is why creation 'science' will always be wrong. Evolutionary theory could be proven wrong tomorrow...but creation 'science' does not have the strength do it. Why?
Because it forages through legitimate scientific disciplines, clinging to facts that support its own (already decided) theories and dismissing the facts that do not.
Creationists do not merely argue that evolution is false, they argue against using the scientific method. And that position is a pretty tough one to take in 2003.
I sure hope you are kidding because if not you are kidding yourself. Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
I would encourage you to listen to the lecture I listed a few threads up and come back and tell me if indeed the theory of evolution is number 1 scientific and number two does it have just one piece of evidence to support it.
I sure hope you are kidding because if not you are kidding yourself. Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
I would encourage you to listen to the lecture I listed a few threads up and come back and tell me if indeed the theory of evolution is number 1 scientific and number two does it have just one piece of evidence to support it.
Fellowship
The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is so comprehensive that to deny it is to confirm your closemindedness.
You might do a little informal study, Fellowship, and see if those creationists around you (and maybe yourself) you have any interest in science or the scientific community outside of the hot-button issue of evolution.
Like the stoner who pretends to be politically active but cares only about the issue of drug legalization, most creationists have a pretty narrow agenda. Once again, the real issue here isn't evolution. It's whether or not there should be unassailable truths that preclude our observation of the world around us.
... Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
Fellowship
Evolution has a model(s), from which the theory is developed.
Within that model one makes conjectures, assumptions and predictions.
These can be tested against the known data.
This is known as analysis, and can be critical in nature. Oh dear, who would have thought?
So far this model is in agreement with the data.
One day it will not be, as is the fate of all models.
When that happens, a new theory will be developed to explain the observed data. As is happening right now (as I explain below), as you would know if you bothered to read about evolution from non-creationist sources.
That theory will not be called creationism.
You simply don't know how science works, do you?
Theories don't just spontaneously appear out of thin air - well, creationist theories might, but scientific theories don't. Decades can pass before evidence becomes a model and a theory. All the while researchers toil away, hoping to come up with a new way of seeing things. A new way that explains even more of the data, or a way that explains more clearly what is being seen.
xenu let's keep the thread on topic and drop the insults. I do have an idea of how science works and I embrace science, medicine, and technology more than you may know. I have only asked some questions regarding the theory of evolution.
You said in regard to the theory of evolution:
Quote:
So far this model is in agreement with the data.
I take issue with this statement. I would love to see one piece of data that supports the theory of evolution.
I know full well natural selection is a fact. I also know full well mutations do happen. What I question is that these things account for the theory of evolution and thus the origins of all living things. I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor. Because of this I question the entire theory of evolution as it is built on this assumption. I question the the "transitional" creatures that those who proclaim the theory of evolution proclaim they have found. History has shown time and time again the mistakes, hoaxes and false data regarding these so-called "transitional" creatures.
I do not have any problem with my questions posed to this theory. I think questioning is how one comes to a better understanding of reality. To shut out all possibilities and to use insulting language does not advance science or understanding.
I advocate for science to be open to questioning no matter the idea or field. Be it space travel and the best means for safe travel or the merits of vaccination. I welcome dialogue over many issues of which may not have the drama of the questioning over origins. I think civil and smart people can discuss issues without the need for distractions and insult tactics. I am only saying let's discuss the merits of issues and leave names out.
It is not a personal issue it is simply questions over a theory.
You are welcome to ask questions concerning the views of creationists.
The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is so comprehensive that to deny it is to confirm your closemindedness.
Gizzmonic There is no body of evidence as a matter of fact not one piece of evidence. There are assumptions. Nothing more and if you disagree I welcome you to provide to me your findings concerning this matter.
Once again I will say I know factually natural selection is truth that is observable. I will say that mutations are also a truth that is observable. What is not so clear is to assume these two things account for the origins of all life.
I do have an idea of how science works and I embrace science, medicine, and technology more than you may know. I have only asked some questions regarding the theory of evolution.
You know more than we may know you know about science? Well, isn't this exactly the forum to be demonstrating said knowledge, rather than keeping your knowledge of science such an INCREDIDBLY well-hidden secret?
Those questions you mention that you've asked? So far, they show the opposite of what you'd like us to believe about your knowledge of science. It's as if you were adamant to have us believe you know the subject of history well, and just to show us how well you know it, you challenge us with "So, if you're so smart, tell me what year Detroit became the capital of the United States!"
The premises of your questions show you don't understand the subject. But that's fine with you, because you get to feel triumphantly smug when, yet again, the ignoramuses you're forced to deal with start babbling nonsense about Detroit never having been the capital, in order to avoid your probing question, of course.
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook, in another message
Gizzmonic There is no body of evidence as a matter of fact not one piece of evidence. There are assumptions. Nothing more and if you disagree I welcome you to provide to me your findings concerning this matter.
NOT ONE piece of evidence? Not even one, eensy teensy bit? You're not even generous enough to acknowledge a single strength of a theory that has done very, very well by the standards of many scientists over the last 150 years?
It's not even that there are a few supportive pieces of evidence, but evidence that evolutionists make this mistake or that along the way when putting the evidence together? It's simply a matter of NOT ONE single shred or evidence, and a lot of very deluded so-called scientists without clue one about what they're up to?
Quote:
Once again I will say I know factually natural selection is truth that is observable. I will say that mutations are also a truth that is observable. What is not so clear is to assume these two things account for the origins of all life.
First you say there's not one piece of evidence, and then you state two pieces of the evidence. Ah, but you say that these two facts aren't evidence of evolution? It's only an assumption that these two facts are linked to evolution, right?
If that's how you see it, then you don't understand science. The word "evidence", in the sense of "piece of evidence", rather the in the sense "body of evidence", means a piece of information that contributes to a broader picture. Very seldom is one piece of evidence a slam-dunk straight to an inescapable conclusion.
Your strategy is clear: You are going to demand that each piece of evidence stands by itself, by more rigorous standards than even a whole body of evidence would normally be expected to support. When each piece of evidence doesn't in-and-of-itself prove the whole theory, you're going to dismiss it as worthless. You will call it an "assumption" when someone tries to use the piece of evidence to make any sort of claim.
Consider a murder trial. In most cases, if the prosecution had to rely on one single piece of evidence -- one fingerprint, one eyewitness, one suspicious life insurance policy, etc. -- they'd not merely be laughed out of court, they'd never get the case into a courtroom in the first place.
You treat all of the evidence ever presented to you supporting evolution like a single fingerprint in isolation from all other evidence, without consideration to the other evidence. If the "so-called evidence" for evolution can't stand up in court one piece at a time, with the jury kept ignorant of the bigger picture, you're happy to proclaim the whole thing nonsense.
I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.
Evolution does not require a common ancestor for all life forms.
Transcript 2: (I start a new job on Monday, so this is probably the last one )
First 1:30, quite a few PhDs this guy has. Topic: "evolution, theistic evolution or creation". Reading from Genesis: "In the beginning...".
Stuff about zygotes -> humans. Evolution does not say anything about an increase in order (5:40). I fear that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about to get abused again.
Evolution is not about dead matter developing into living matter (6:35). And why don't people believe in the exploratory power of chance?
A symapathetic audience is again in effect.
9:20: orgin of life treated as the origin of the program for building lifeforms. "You know... programs do not arise spontaneously from chance". Quite a few of the methods I have studied in AI do exactly this: self programming systems exist.
11:15: organisms' programs (DNA) can't be fiddled with or the organism will be destroyed. Not true: few, but some, mutations are beneficial.
Seven hypothesises on evolutionary theory:
Non-living matter gave rise to living matter spontaneously; time + matter + energy = life is the equation mentioned. Mentions Fox and Allen creating amino acids from methane, water and amonia. A comparison is made with an avanlanche producing stones, so why not a house as it moves further down the hill. Still about the origins of life.
Handedness of organic molecules:
Carbon atoms have tetrahedral valencies, so they have four things attached to them. Joke about sleeping on it at 19:00. Left handed and right handed carbon molecules are mentioned: all life is based on "left handed" carbon molecules. Right handed molecules are irrelevant to left handed life (and vice versa) as it just won't work otherwise: what's the problem? All it does it square the size of the problem space (but there are now double the number of solutions).
Racemic mixture is half left handed molecules, half right. However, that does not mean that it cannot give rise to life: how many organic molecules are there in a primordial soup, how long does such a soup exist for (about 3 billion years?) and how often do atoms rebond? Remember, moelcules are very small and the planet is rather large. 23:40: At a conference a the Atomic Energy Station in Neulich in Germany "they came to the conclusion that you can't do it". Doesn't convince me.
Also implies a cover up: "they don't want to get it into schoolbooks".
25:40: "Life only arose once". Stopped at 25:00 to go out, back soon, still disagree that programs/order cannot arise from randomness.
As someone else has already pointed out, he's also wrong about synthesizing DNA. There are now machines that you can simply type in a base pair sequence... ATTGTCGACAGGA... and have the machine crank out a custom strand of DNA for you.
I think you just unwittingly made the speakers "infromation" point.
9:20: orgin of life treated as the origin of the program for building lifeforms. "You know... programs do not arise spontaneously from chance". Quite a few of the methods I have studied in AI do exactly this: self programming systems exist.
11:15: organisms' programs (DNA) can't be fiddled with or the organism will be destroyed. Not true: few, but some, mutations are beneficial.
Did the "self-programming" systems arise by chance too?
Yes, if a system has altered DNA you have a system failure, I think you are thinking of mutations in the transmission between progeny.
Comments
Originally posted by xenu
Evolution starts with the basic assumption that there is life, and goes from there. You did know that didn't you? I would hate to think you are arguing the wrong theory.
Evolution does not start there. Evolution has to explain the transformation from a nonliving form to living.
I know exactly the theory I question.
This man articulates this very point.
Give him a listen and notice his credentials.
Evolution Vs/ Creation Audio link
Fellowship
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030508/030508-3.html
Virtual Life-Forms Mutate, Shedding Light on Evolution :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...organisms.html
That's what happens when you read /.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/...id=134&tid=156
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Evolution does not start there. Evolution has to explain the transformation from a nonliving form to living.
You really have no idea do you?
Perhaps now we understand you a little better - you are not even arguing evolution, but something else.
Do try to keep up with the times - we are discussing evolution.
You know, the theory that assumes life exists, then goes from there.
I know exactly the theory I question.
Obviously you don't.
Originally posted by xenu
You really have no idea do you?
Perhaps now we understand you a little better - you are not even arguing evolution, but something else.
Do try to keep up with the times - we are discussing evolution.
You know, the theory that assumes life exists, then goes from there.
Obviously you don't.
If you would listen to the link I provided you could see that indeed evolution is not a scientific theory.
That's right not scientific. If you wish to know why take a listen and expand your mind.
Evolution Vs/ Creation audio link
Fellowship
Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02571a.htm
Abiogenesis?Origins of Life Research
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins
New theory for origin of life
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021202/021202-3.html
Humour
http://evolutionoftruth.com/hum/abiogenesis.htm
I'll wait for Hassan i Sabbah and Stoo to produce their transcripts - I'm on a modem.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
... evolution is not a scientific theory.
That's right not scientific. ...
Fellowship
Evolution is indeed a scientific theory.
It has a model, it has assumptions and makes predictions.
Just like every other theory.
More importantly, it requires observable evidence and can be proved false.
It is a theory. A scientific theory, and a good one.
What makes it different from other theories is that we cannot go back a billion years and watch the eye evolve, for example.
Not that that is a major problem, because there is ample fossile evidence to show we evolved. It has also been pointed out that you cannot do modern biology or medicine without evolutionary theory.
We can also make logical arguments for how the eye can evolve - within the given model. Wow, just like scientific theories do!
And since we have models, and this new fangled thing called the digital computer, we can write code to test these models.
They can then criticise the models, and perform error analysis.
You know, the stuff researchers do all day when they are not playing on-line games and proving god doesn't exist. Oh, and buying stuff because they are all materialists. Oh, and hiding the analysis and criticisms in dry boring research tomes, where those pesky students and educators will never find them.
Originally posted by trumptman
I think you exaggerate the matter quite a bit. First of all I have stated that I find microevolution, recombining current DNA, manipulation of current traits, even splicing traits out of one creature into another to all be valid science. I call this microevolution. Even the Catholic church will admit to this science and it is likely what your brother in law, a botanist, uses.
One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". Here's the original Latin:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/fo...am's+Razor:
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.
So, given that you accept what you call "microevolution", which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor:
(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life has arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?
(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?
If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?
Maybe you simply believe (C) None of the above is the best explanation. But why shouldn't science classes teach the best that science has to offer now, even if a few people don't think it's "complete"? Science is, after all, about finding the best explanations we can -- not about quietly keeping everything to yourself until someday you miraculously reach perfection.
And if you don't object to evolution being taught, then why, when it's the best that science now has to offer regarding the origins of life, do you think evolution needs special, government-mandated criticisms? Why aren't students own questions good enough like in every other subject of study? What specific criticisms do you believe have earned the merit of special attention in science classrooms?
Secondly I posted a list of scientists in the earth and life sciences who do not believe evolution is a full explanation.
What they have to say isn't worth much until they can provide something better than what they criticize. Merely groaning over and over again that "Gee, this stuff just seems too complex to happen by chance!" doesn't cut it.
It's not like the "intelligent design" proponents have come up with anything even close to a vague mathematical outline for how to compute the likelihood of a cilia, or other structures, biological processes, and forms of life forming by chance. They just call these things "highly improbable" because they think about all the pieces and parts real hard and can't imagine useful intermediate steps leading to the end result.
Do we just take them at their word that cilia and eyeballs and anaerobic glycosis are "irreducibly complex", or, when we know that many amazing results can arise from simple self-organizing systems, do we strongly consider that the said "irreducible complexity" is merely a failure of human imagination to see and appreciate all of the possibilities?
That is also something I wish to emphasize myself. Evolution can explain somethings, but as the sole answer regarding origins of life it falls short.
I can say that wind and rain and other effects of erosion are responsible for wearing down a mountain. Is my theory a failure until I can draw you an exact picture of what the mountain used to look like, track the history of every boulder, rock, pebble, and grain of sand from its past location to its present location, and explain to you why the mountain wore down to into its particular present shape and not some other one? Of course not.
Yet when evolutionary theory doesn't spell out step-by-step how DNA or cilia came to be, when evolution doesn't provide a complete family tree of all species in ten-year snapshots for the past four billion years -- critics call evolution a failure. Has it occurred to you that they're simply creating irrational measures of success for evolutionary theory to which they wouldn't subject any other theory?
My fundamentalist friends, it's not science if you've already decided what your observations are going to find.
THAT is why creation 'science' will always be wrong. Evolutionary theory could be proven wrong tomorrow...but creation 'science' does not have the strength do it. Why?
Because it forages through legitimate scientific disciplines, clinging to facts that support its own (already decided) theories and dismissing the facts that do not.
Creationists do not merely argue that evolution is false, they argue against using the scientific method. And that position is a pretty tough one to take in 2003.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
I love this debate.
My fundamentalist friends, it's not science if you've already decided what your observations are going to find.
THAT is why creation 'science' will always be wrong. Evolutionary theory could be proven wrong tomorrow...but creation 'science' does not have the strength do it. Why?
Because it forages through legitimate scientific disciplines, clinging to facts that support its own (already decided) theories and dismissing the facts that do not.
Creationists do not merely argue that evolution is false, they argue against using the scientific method. And that position is a pretty tough one to take in 2003.
I sure hope you are kidding because if not you are kidding yourself. Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
I would encourage you to listen to the lecture I listed a few threads up and come back and tell me if indeed the theory of evolution is number 1 scientific and number two does it have just one piece of evidence to support it.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I sure hope you are kidding because if not you are kidding yourself. Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
I would encourage you to listen to the lecture I listed a few threads up and come back and tell me if indeed the theory of evolution is number 1 scientific and number two does it have just one piece of evidence to support it.
Fellowship
The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is so comprehensive that to deny it is to confirm your closemindedness.
You might do a little informal study, Fellowship, and see if those creationists around you (and maybe yourself) you have any interest in science or the scientific community outside of the hot-button issue of evolution.
Like the stoner who pretends to be politically active but cares only about the issue of drug legalization, most creationists have a pretty narrow agenda. Once again, the real issue here isn't evolution. It's whether or not there should be unassailable truths that preclude our observation of the world around us.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
... Evolution has what it wishes to prove (foundations and tenants) as well.
Fellowship
Evolution has a model(s), from which the theory is developed.
Within that model one makes conjectures, assumptions and predictions.
These can be tested against the known data.
This is known as analysis, and can be critical in nature. Oh dear, who would have thought?
So far this model is in agreement with the data.
One day it will not be, as is the fate of all models.
When that happens, a new theory will be developed to explain the observed data. As is happening right now (as I explain below), as you would know if you bothered to read about evolution from non-creationist sources.
That theory will not be called creationism.
You simply don't know how science works, do you?
Theories don't just spontaneously appear out of thin air - well, creationist theories might, but scientific theories don't. Decades can pass before evidence becomes a model and a theory. All the while researchers toil away, hoping to come up with a new way of seeing things. A new way that explains even more of the data, or a way that explains more clearly what is being seen.
You said in regard to the theory of evolution:
So far this model is in agreement with the data.
I take issue with this statement. I would love to see one piece of data that supports the theory of evolution.
I know full well natural selection is a fact. I also know full well mutations do happen. What I question is that these things account for the theory of evolution and thus the origins of all living things. I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor. Because of this I question the entire theory of evolution as it is built on this assumption. I question the the "transitional" creatures that those who proclaim the theory of evolution proclaim they have found. History has shown time and time again the mistakes, hoaxes and false data regarding these so-called "transitional" creatures.
I do not have any problem with my questions posed to this theory. I think questioning is how one comes to a better understanding of reality. To shut out all possibilities and to use insulting language does not advance science or understanding.
I advocate for science to be open to questioning no matter the idea or field. Be it space travel and the best means for safe travel or the merits of vaccination. I welcome dialogue over many issues of which may not have the drama of the questioning over origins. I think civil and smart people can discuss issues without the need for distractions and insult tactics. I am only saying let's discuss the merits of issues and leave names out.
It is not a personal issue it is simply questions over a theory.
You are welcome to ask questions concerning the views of creationists.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is so comprehensive that to deny it is to confirm your closemindedness.
Gizzmonic There is no body of evidence as a matter of fact not one piece of evidence. There are assumptions. Nothing more and if you disagree I welcome you to provide to me your findings concerning this matter.
Once again I will say I know factually natural selection is truth that is observable. I will say that mutations are also a truth that is observable. What is not so clear is to assume these two things account for the origins of all life.
Fellowship
i must watch my temper
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Gizzmonic There is no body of evidence as a matter of fact not one piece of evidence.
This is false. This is bullshit. This is not accurate. This is not true. This is incorrect.
And it doesn't seem to matter how much evidence to the contrary you are offered.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do have an idea of how science works and I embrace science, medicine, and technology more than you may know. I have only asked some questions regarding the theory of evolution.
You know more than we may know you know about science? Well, isn't this exactly the forum to be demonstrating said knowledge, rather than keeping your knowledge of science such an INCREDIDBLY well-hidden secret?
Those questions you mention that you've asked? So far, they show the opposite of what you'd like us to believe about your knowledge of science. It's as if you were adamant to have us believe you know the subject of history well, and just to show us how well you know it, you challenge us with "So, if you're so smart, tell me what year Detroit became the capital of the United States!"
The premises of your questions show you don't understand the subject. But that's fine with you, because you get to feel triumphantly smug when, yet again, the ignoramuses you're forced to deal with start babbling nonsense about Detroit never having been the capital, in order to avoid your probing question, of course.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook, in another message
Gizzmonic There is no body of evidence as a matter of fact not one piece of evidence. There are assumptions. Nothing more and if you disagree I welcome you to provide to me your findings concerning this matter.
NOT ONE piece of evidence? Not even one, eensy teensy bit? You're not even generous enough to acknowledge a single strength of a theory that has done very, very well by the standards of many scientists over the last 150 years?
It's not even that there are a few supportive pieces of evidence, but evidence that evolutionists make this mistake or that along the way when putting the evidence together? It's simply a matter of NOT ONE single shred or evidence, and a lot of very deluded so-called scientists without clue one about what they're up to?
Once again I will say I know factually natural selection is truth that is observable. I will say that mutations are also a truth that is observable. What is not so clear is to assume these two things account for the origins of all life.
First you say there's not one piece of evidence, and then you state two pieces of the evidence. Ah, but you say that these two facts aren't evidence of evolution? It's only an assumption that these two facts are linked to evolution, right?
If that's how you see it, then you don't understand science. The word "evidence", in the sense of "piece of evidence", rather the in the sense "body of evidence", means a piece of information that contributes to a broader picture. Very seldom is one piece of evidence a slam-dunk straight to an inescapable conclusion.
Your strategy is clear: You are going to demand that each piece of evidence stands by itself, by more rigorous standards than even a whole body of evidence would normally be expected to support. When each piece of evidence doesn't in-and-of-itself prove the whole theory, you're going to dismiss it as worthless. You will call it an "assumption" when someone tries to use the piece of evidence to make any sort of claim.
Consider a murder trial. In most cases, if the prosecution had to rely on one single piece of evidence -- one fingerprint, one eyewitness, one suspicious life insurance policy, etc. -- they'd not merely be laughed out of court, they'd never get the case into a courtroom in the first place.
You treat all of the evidence ever presented to you supporting evolution like a single fingerprint in isolation from all other evidence, without consideration to the other evidence. If the "so-called evidence" for evolution can't stand up in court one piece at a time, with the jury kept ignorant of the bigger picture, you're happy to proclaim the whole thing nonsense.
I do question the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.
Evolution does not require a common ancestor for all life forms.
Transcript 2: (I start a new job on Monday, so this is probably the last one
First 1:30, quite a few PhDs this guy has. Topic: "evolution, theistic evolution or creation". Reading from Genesis: "In the beginning...".
Stuff about zygotes -> humans. Evolution does not say anything about an increase in order (5:40). I fear that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about to get abused again.
Evolution is not about dead matter developing into living matter (6:35). And why don't people believe in the exploratory power of chance?
A symapathetic audience is again in effect.
9:20: orgin of life treated as the origin of the program for building lifeforms. "You know... programs do not arise spontaneously from chance". Quite a few of the methods I have studied in AI do exactly this: self programming systems exist.
11:15: organisms' programs (DNA) can't be fiddled with or the organism will be destroyed. Not true: few, but some, mutations are beneficial.
Seven hypothesises on evolutionary theory:
Non-living matter gave rise to living matter spontaneously; time + matter + energy = life is the equation mentioned. Mentions Fox and Allen creating amino acids from methane, water and amonia. A comparison is made with an avanlanche producing stones, so why not a house as it moves further down the hill. Still about the origins of life.
Handedness of organic molecules:
Carbon atoms have tetrahedral valencies, so they have four things attached to them. Joke about sleeping on it at 19:00. Left handed and right handed carbon molecules are mentioned: all life is based on "left handed" carbon molecules. Right handed molecules are irrelevant to left handed life (and vice versa) as it just won't work otherwise: what's the problem? All it does it square the size of the problem space (but there are now double the number of solutions).
Racemic mixture is half left handed molecules, half right. However, that does not mean that it cannot give rise to life: how many organic molecules are there in a primordial soup, how long does such a soup exist for (about 3 billion years?) and how often do atoms rebond? Remember, moelcules are very small and the planet is rather large. 23:40: At a conference a the Atomic Energy Station in Neulich in Germany "they came to the conclusion that you can't do it".
Also implies a cover up: "they don't want to get it into schoolbooks".
25:40: "Life only arose once". Stopped at 25:00 to go out, back soon, still disagree that programs/order cannot arise from randomness.
Off to bake some cakes while it downloads.
The cakes turned out nicely.
Originally posted by Stoo
The cakes turned out nicely.
Excellent.
And Fellowship old chap I'm sorry if I'm rude.
Originally posted by shetline
As someone else has already pointed out, he's also wrong about synthesizing DNA. There are now machines that you can simply type in a base pair sequence... ATTGTCGACAGGA... and have the machine crank out a custom strand of DNA for you.
I think you just unwittingly made the speakers "infromation" point.
Originally posted by Stoo
9:20: orgin of life treated as the origin of the program for building lifeforms. "You know... programs do not arise spontaneously from chance". Quite a few of the methods I have studied in AI do exactly this: self programming systems exist.
11:15: organisms' programs (DNA) can't be fiddled with or the organism will be destroyed. Not true: few, but some, mutations are beneficial.
Did the "self-programming" systems arise by chance too?
Yes, if a system has altered DNA you have a system failure, I think you are thinking of mutations in the transmission between progeny.