2 edits
You seem unable to understand what I'm saying. All you've done is create a circular argument about why you don't need to have a complete theory of evolution from beginning until now. As I said earlier, it may make you feel better about ignoring holes in your beliefs, but that's all you are doing(at least holes from a scientific point of view, you still have your unsubstantiated beliefs about abiogenesis).
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarLike I said, you seem not to understand the division of labor in science. Evolutionists don't have to consider where life came from, how it got started, what is so hard to understand about that? And you keep repeating it's our 'belief' system, trying once again to equate religion and science. They are not even on the same page, not even on the same shelf of the library so don't keep putting us together with your own boring story that hasn't changed in 4000 years. Science is about changes and is not a belief system. What part of 'changes' do you not understand? it's YOUR REAL belief system that is a belief system, don't try to put your blinders on us. Hey, if they find a fossil bunny rabbit 200 million years old, there will be some major rethinking about evolution for sure but thats what change is all about, if you believe something you don't just change it because some new evidence points away from it, you continue to believe the exact same thing, that's the nature of your particular set of blinders. We who actually use our own brains to try to figure things out instead of blindly following a 4000 year old twice plagerized tale can and do change our opinions from year to year. You cannot say the same thing so don't even TRY to put the blinders of belief on us.
You seem unable to understand what I'm saying. All you've done is create a circular argument about why you don't need to have a complete theory of evolution from beginning until now. As I said earlier, it may make you feel better about ignoring holes in your beliefs, but that's all you are doing(at least holes from a scientific point of view, you still have your unsubstantiated beliefs about abiogenesis).
Another thing that keeps pissing me off, you and your ilk seem to think it's ok to keep thinking we have big holes in our work when in fact what you consider as holes get filled in almost on a daily basis so you can in fact only see them as holes for a limited amount of time. I am optimistic about human genius figuring it all out eventually, in the meantime you have such a big hole in what you laughingly call reality, you could drop the entire universe in it and not even find it later.
As to your dreaded concept of abiogenesis, I have no real opinion of that one way or the other, my mind is actually open on that subject. If it turns out some god waves its plasmonic hand and brought it all about, hey, find me scientific evidence and I will consider it along with all the other theories bandied about. So far the science dudes are still fighting it out on whether life first formed in ice, broth, mud, clay, comets, intersteller gas, a whole plethera of different directions, nobody is stuck on abiogenesis like you creationist seem to assume.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYou are better off staying with your bible, you will be much happier that way.
OK, I think we've talked past each other enough.
BTW, if you are still reading this, this so-called circular logic of yours has other examples in science. One big one is String Theory.
String theory is an attempt to explain all the forces in one big unified field thery and has made some major advances in all but one:
A prediction. That is a big hole in the premis but they keep plugging away and building up a major database of knowledge anyway.
They eventually may come up with a prediction that can be tested or refuted but so far nothing, and scientist are chiding the string dudes precisely because of it. But nobody chides evolutionists for not pursuing the beginning of life, there is no hole there. The hole is in your assumptions.
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarEvolution is merely a theory of the general process of how simpler life forms developed into generally more complex life forms and allowed life to diversify into many different forms. It is NOT a theory of, say, the exact details of how a particular species evolved nor is it a theory of, say, the exact details of how the very first life evolved but rather, as I have just suggested, it is ONLY a theory of the general process of how living things generally do diversify into many forms.
You seem unable to understand what I'm saying. All you've done is create a circular argument about why you don't need to have a complete theory of evolution from beginning until now. As I said earlier, it may make you feel better about ignoring holes in your beliefs, but that's all you are doing(at least holes from a scientific point of view, you still have your unsubstantiated beliefs about abiogenesis).
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have all the fine details of the precise history of how all species that ever existed evolved is not a “hole” in the theory of evolution hole because, obviously, evolution is not even supposed to explain this -it is only supposed to explain the general process because that is what the theory is actually about.
Unless what you are referring to as a “hole” is the mere fact that evolution doesn’t explain how the first life began? -if so, evolution is not a theory of how life began either:
And read my last post I answered to KellyJay on page 42 of this thread about this.
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladar1. There is no reason to believe that abiogenesis is not possible.
There is simply no scientific evidence for the beginnings of macro-evolution. What I mean by that is there is no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible.
2. There is abundant evidence that it is possible. That evidence is the life you see around you combined with our knowledge of the planets past. Abiogenesis is the most reasonable explanation.
How is it that life can be produced from something without life?
Um.. duh! It called abiogensis!
It can't be observed.
What? How do you know that?
It can't be re-produced,
You mean hasn't been. There is a subtle difference.
..but it is accepted as a fact of life by anyone who believes in natural evolution.
And with good reason. The same applies to many many other things that you too accept as fact but do not question because your religion does not require you to.
To give an example: I don't think that the fusion reaction that take place in the Sun has been either directly observed nor re-produced. Do you think it runs on gasolene? God power perhaps?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell on the last point, it has been reproduced and seen, one of the demonstrations destroyed Bikini Atoll. It is called the Hydrogen Bomb.
1. There is no reason to believe that abiogenesis is not possible.
2. There is abundant evidence that it is possible. That evidence is the life you see around you combined with our knowledge of the planets past. Abiogenesis is the most reasonable explanation.
[b]How is it that life can be produced from something without life?
Um.. duh! It called ther directly observed nor re-produced. Do you think it runs on gasolene? God power perhaps?[/b]
Of course doing it in a more controlled way is a teeny bit harder.
From his post saying we have 'talked past one another long enough' I assume that to mean he won't respond to any of us, just pity us for being so blind as we cannot see the Lord's truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseEveryone has 'blinders' on, they are our starting assumptions that color
We are way past 'evolution did it'. Every new discovery leads the way. The newest work involves DNA analysis of early humans, which can be used to trace the many migrations out of africa. The thing is, when you get information from many many different sources it takes on a life of its own and only a blind man would ignore it. KJ, you have blinders on whethe utch, dumb and proud of it', and they are serious.
Do you wish to be seen in that light?
everything we see. Your belief that we are way past "evolution did it" are
your blinders even if you refuse to acknowledge it, you start off with
the assumption that is true and work from there.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by timebombtedCan you have a conversation with me without the condescension, the
Please clarify:
In the world of KJ, because science cannot yet answer "the start of everything", everything we see today must be taken with a pinch of salt. To what extremes do you hold this belief? Science has shown us the world is not flat?....... with your logic do you believe it is flat?
......and if you truely believe science approaches everyt lution did it" in the same context as "god did it" you are truely living in the dark ages.
world of KJ is just belittling. The start of everything I’d say the father
into the past we have to look at the more likely that we are left with just
beliefs about occurred, but the closer to now we are the more likely we
can test and verify our assumptions. You feel I am being
unreasonable with this train of thought?
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse"Why are you asking questions like where does everything come from when you know full well nobody on Earth knows the answer to that and why should I be any different?"
Why are you asking questions like where does everything come from when you know full well nobody on Earth knows the answer to that and why should I be any different? The thing is, you have only a thin window of time for your religious certainty, by the end of this century and I think a lot sooner, there will be solid scientific answers to the big questions f controlling men and subjugating women. In that task it has succeeded spectacularly.
Why I’m asking questions like, “Where does everything come from” is
because it is a fair question to ask! I know full well no one on earth
knows, and yet people here seem quite content to dismiss that
question and move on as if that answer is meaningless to all
discussion about reality. The Big Bang has that question surrounding
it, and still it is just ignored at the same time people insist there isn’t
any evidence for a creator, when they are sitting in the middle of
something that no one can come up with any explanation for except
an outside influence did it, religion aside if you can give me an
explanation for everything outside of creator I’m listening.
A solid answer for the Big Bang is just a belief statement on your part
about an event that supposedly occurred billions of years ago. There
is no such thing as a solid scientific answer for events that occurred
billions of years ago! You can describe a possible cause for various
effects you see throughout the universe, and give the Big Bang credit
but that is as far as you can go.
“Its your grandkids who will have problems with faith when it is shown you take elements X,Y, and Z and mix them with energy A, B, and C for some length of time and boing, out pops lifeforms, like bacteria, which at this point in time are dauntingly complex, even the simple forms are beyond our ability to suss out completely, and I mean AT THIS TIME.”
Well cool you have the ‘belief’ that will occur, a statement of faith on
your part is as moving as a statement of faith on my part, such as we
live, we die, and afterwards the judgment. Today in the here and now
we have what is before us, we see the complexity of life, and all the
intelligent design efforts of man have so far been unable to produce
what supposedly just occurred without any plan or effort to achieve an
end.
I was asked why I held the belief I do and I’m giving my reasons, I’m
not attempting to bait people here.
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm sure you believe that, but that is your belief not the same thing as
Sonhouse has provided a lenghty an excellent post to your game, so I will be brief.
I do not believe religion has it right as there is ZERO evidence for any of these mumbo mumbo stories.
I believe science will find the right answers, with progressive thoughts, technologies, predictions and research. The past is an indication of this.
One is atte ...[text shortened]... aving more weight..... unfortunately it adds nothing to the authenticity of your belief system.
a fact now is it? Attempts at answering the questions of life and all that
there is are just attempts to answer them, not every answer can be
found in science as you well know, who is to say that the universe is
one of those things science can tell us about the beginning of now?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay, sonhouse was talking about those things, and I was speaking
[b] …. I'm asking where everything
comes from. If you have no answer I suggest you have a huge hole
in your knowledge .…
sonhouse was talking about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Evolution is part of his and my knowledge.
Evolution is NOT a theory of “where everything comes from” because it is merely a theory of how simpler ...[text shortened]... evolution doesn’t explain “where everything came from” is totally irrelevant to the issue here.[/b]
about something else... this means what?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
[b] …. I'm asking where everything
comes from. If you have no answer I suggest you have a huge hole
in your knowledge .…
sonhouse was talking about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Evolution is part of his and my knowledge.
Evolution is NOT a theory of “where everything comes from” because it is merely a theory of how simpler ...[text shortened]... evolution doesn’t explain “where everything came from” is totally irrelevant to the issue here.[/b]
a plan or purpose and evolved into the vast variety we see today. You
can believe that if you desire, you can accept if the word belief some
how insults you, but you cannot tell me it is a fact, it is a theory and
that theory has issues with reality.
I understand evolution does not address the beginning of life, I did
not suggest it did. Evolution is a process of change, I believe in
processes of change, but how much change is another question all
together when we start to dish out credit for what occured and why.
Kelly.
Originally posted by sonhouseI call the Big Bang a fairy tale; I call steady state another fairy tale,
That's just not how it works. You have many sciences that have sub-divisions, like astronomy, astronomers don't make up tales about the beginning of the universe, that job is up to Cosmologists. They are the ones who fight over Big Bangs, steady state, string theory and the like. It's the same in evolutionary theory, the evolutionists stick with what they k ...[text shortened]... our faith. Looks like you are just forever stuck on freeze frame, never to advance.
so I disagree with you about people making up stories about the
beginning. The difference between science and creation is that creation
is a story about an event, it either occurred the way it says or it did not.
Science is an ever changing means with which to acquire new
information and understanding. Having said that it does not mean
because there is different means of a reaching a conclusion, that creation
is now some how not true! It only means there is a different means
of reaching a conclusion, the truthfulness of our understanding does not
rest with how we got what we believe, it only matters if what we believe
actually reflects reality or not.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…What I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
What I deny is it is a fact life started from non-living material without
a plan or purpose and evolved into the vast variety we see today. You
can believe that if you desire, you can accept if the word belief some
how insults you, but you cannot tell me it is a fact, it is a theory and
that theory has issues with reality.
I understand evolution does ...[text shortened]... nother question all
together when we start to dish out credit for what occured and why.
Kelly.
a plan or purpose AND evolved into the vast variety we see today…(my emphasis)
The former has nothing to do with evolution while the latter is evolution.
I presume you deny both these things because you believe them to be against your religion.
…You can believe that if you DESIRE,… (my emphasis)
I do not “DESIRE” to believe what I do just as I do not “DESIRE” to believe 2+2=4
…can accept if the word belief some how insults you…
?
Why would I think the word “belief ” insulting? Of course I “believe” it and that means I have a “belief”.
…but you cannot tell me it is a fact, it is a theory and that theory has issues with reality.…
Are you talking here about the theory of evolution or the theory that life started from non-living material? -obviously these are two very different theories.
If you are talking about the “theory” of evolution -yes it is technically correct to call it a “theory” and it is also a scientifically proven theory by the evidence just as quantum “theory” is a scientifically proven theory by the evidence.
But if you are talking about the theory that life started from non-living material Yes, of course that is also a “theory” -but it is also considered to be a scientific fact.
But I would say this is one of those rare cases of a “theory” that is not “proven” by the evidence but rather “proven” by the mere absence of any credible alternative theory. Most scientific theories that are proven are proven by the evidence but sometimes, if there simply is no other credible alternative theory to a given theory X, then I think it is correct to say that a theory X is “proven” merely by the absence of any credible alternative theory that can be formulated to contradict theory X.
…I believe in processes of change, but how MUCH change is another question all
together when we start to dish out credit for what occurred and why…(my emphasis)
I am uncertain of exactly what you are suggesting here:
are you saying that evolution is responsible for some of the changes but not others? -if so, then if you accept that evolution is responsible for at least some of the changes then why would you not accept that evolution is responsible simply for all those changes? -I mean, after all, that would be the simplest hypothesis -correct?
If you are suggesting here that some of the changes were caused by evolution but some of the changes where not caused by evolution then exactly what do you believe caused those other changes that were not caused by evolution?