PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A question
       DON'T Chew my head off please

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose? This is JUST a QUESTION, so no one chew my head off, saying Creationists are dumb, *Cough obvious child cough*, or start sneering and attacking me, *Cough, demon38 Cough*, just answer the bloody question.

Thank you.

(Edited by JSF16 2/22/2009 at 9:51 PM).


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 9:51 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how does evolution say first life arose?
Ok, easy answer.

It doesn't.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:12 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:24 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why?

Edit: Creationists claim to know how life began, yet they don't have a theory (or a clue, to be accurate) about how it developed.


(Edited by wisp 2/22/2009 at 10:34 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:32 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Evolutions about how life became everything we see today, but it doesn't know how life began. You cant say, we don't know how live started off, but we do know how is became what it is today. If evolution was a building, it's entire cornerstone, its foundation is gone. It is strong, but it has no foundation how life started.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:36 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:51 PM on February 22, 2009 :
Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose?


Biological evolution says nothing as has been noted.  Abiogenesis is sometimes called "chemical evolution".  if you've been following recent threads, you've seen the following demonstrated:  production of highly complex biological precursors on interstellar ice surfaces, delivery to earth of such chemicals on meteorites, concentration of such chemicals in pores of minerals, formation of lipid bilayers (cell walls), and a replicating RNA molecule that appeared when a bunch of it's components were poured together.

What more steps are you looking for?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:44 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutions about how life became everything we see today, but it doesn't know how life began.
Exactly.

You cant say, we don't know how live started off, but we do know how is became what it is today.
And i didn't.

I didn't say i didn't know how it started.
I said Evolution doesn't say it.

If evolution was a building, it's entire cornerstone, its foundation is gone.
Nopes. You chose to call the origin of life the foundation of Evolution. But that's your whim. Evolution doesn't have to provide for it.

Evolution is a process. The Theory of Evolution explains that process. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is strong, but it has no foundation how life started.
It doesn't need to.

So, you acknowledge that it is strong, right?

Are you aware that Evolution can explain the existence, anatomy and behavior of every living species we see, and that Creationism can't account for any parasite or carnivore?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:56 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution can explain it of course, we can explain it all by saying we are all seeded to earth by aliens.

But to provide good evidence for all creatures? That is a different story all together.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:07 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 10:07 PM on February 22, 2009 :
Evolution can explain it of course, we can explain it all by saying we are all seeded to earth by aliens.


It doesn't need to.  See this essay by a Nobel prize winner:

Exploring the New RNA World


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:18 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JSF16 -
we can explain it all by saying we are all seeded to earth by aliens.


Actually, there may be some truth to that statement!  

Amino acids are known to be contained in a certain type of meteorite.  What's more, these meteorites contain predominantly left-handed type of amino acid - same as what all life on earth is made of.  Perhaps solving the mystery of chiralty (left-rignt handed molecules).

Seeds from Space

We may not know exactly how life first formed on earth, but there are certainly clues.  And remember, only about 300 million years seperates the end of heavy meteorite bombardment of the earth 3.9 billion years ago and the earliest fossil record of cyanobacteria 3.6 billion years ago.  300 million years may seem like a long time, but it actually shows that life formed in a relatively short amount of time.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:43 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JSFnn

One of the remarkable things about humans is our imagination. We are capable of imagining many possible ways that life might have come to earth and most of them are fantasies.
BUT, pretty much all human knowledge requires us to use our imaginations to some extent, even evolution.

Firstly, let me say that the Theory of Evolution seeks to explain why there is such great biological diversity all around us as well as so many similarities between so many organisms. It would be nice if it also explained the origin of life itself, and it might yet do that, but for the moment theories of abiogenesis are largely conjecture because there is not very much evidence to work on.

So what is the difference between evolution and any other 'theory'?

Well, basically, Darwin formulated his "Theory of Evolution" in spite of his Christian beliefs not because of them. (We've all read his famous doubts about the evolution of the human eye.) That's called objectivity and its one of the most important characteristics of a good scientific theory.

Another important characteristic of ALL acceptable scientific theories is that they must be refutable. That means we must be able to construct an experiment, the outcome of which could possibly disprove the theory. If we cant do this then the theory is not going to be productive in the scientific sense. Evolution is refutable and creation (along with most of the fantasy theories) is not. Here, of course, we see a basic difference between evolutionary biologists and creationists. Creationists are constantly asking us to prove that evolution is true. That is not a scientific question. Scientists generally assume their theories not to be true and look for ways to disprove them. Good theories are ones that lots of scientists are trying to disprove. In a quirky way, creationists seem to spend a lot of time trying to disprove evolution which just goes to prove what a powerful theory evolution really is. Who, by the way, is actually trying to disprove creation?

Finally, at least for this post, good scientific theories are very useful for predicting things like the outcome of experiments and what observations you would expect under certain circumstances. Evolution has proved to be extremely useful in this respect. In fact, its predictive power has made it one of the foundation stones (to recycle a metaphor from this thread) of all modern biology.

None of the above in any way refutes creation and serious bioligsts can have no interest in refuting creation because it is, after all, irrefutable.

Finally, being a good scientific theory does not necessarily make evolution true. Most good scientific theories turn out to be untrue.... well they turn out to be good approximations of the truth that can be improved with time and effort. As proposed by Darwin, evolution seems to have been a pretty good theory but we ARE still improving on it. Who knows... we might be getting close to the truth.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:42 AM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JSF16:
Evolution can explain it of course, we can explain it all by saying we are all seeded to earth by aliens.
No. That wouldn't explain it "all". It would only explain the origin of life, which doesn't concern the Theory of Evolution (at least presently).

But to provide good evidence for all creatures? That is a different story all together.
Theories don't provide evidence. Theories provide explanations and predictions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:05 AM on February 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it
began


Can we have a theory of how molecules and atoms interact if we don't know how matter first formed?  In other words, how can chemistry work if we don't know where matter came from?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:48 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent analogy Demon!  I like that.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:15 AM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We don't know where time came from.

Yet mi watch keeps measuring it pretty accurately...

According to my theory of time if i set the alarm to 6 a.m., it will go off at 6 a.m., and all of my clocks will agree that it's 6 a.m. It's a great prediction for a theory without a corner stone!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:17 AM on February 24, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all,

I just registered to respond to this, so this is my first post here.

This is an interesting trick going on in the mind of the creationist. I have just begun notice how significant this effect is in the maintenance of self deception.

The critical issue is that the creationist assumes the right to second guess the scientific establishment regarding it's established chain of causality. In the event that something isn't known, the creationist claims to be able to criticize what is known, because the knowledge in question, is in regards to a cause, that precedes the effects which are understood. This is done in an attempt to establish that 'if a cause precedes it's effects, then we should be required to know about / understand / prove the cause, before we can argue the factuality of the effect.' It almost sounds logical because in nature, a cause certainly must precede it's effects. But it should be obvious that the reductio ad absurdum of this expectation is that we must first understand the primary cause of everything before we can explain anything.

Well firstly we should notice the difference between the existence of a phenomena (such as abiogensis) and the existence of our knowledge about it. It doesn't need for us to know about it for it to exist. Then we should notice, that we can know it conceptually and predict that it must exist, without knowing the mechanism by which it operates.

In science we proceed from what is known and attempt to build a coherent understanding if the world in which the chains of cause and effect reasoning most certainly, quite neccecarily are un-attached at one end. The reason for this, is that we must be free to attach to this end of any chain new links which must be found by searching for evidence (empiricism).

It is because the ends of the chain are allowed to float freely that we can attach whatever links are established as dependable knowledge, if and when they are discovered. An effect does not depend on it's cause to be understood before it can itself be understood. If that were true, then science would have gotten nowhere. You certainly wouldn't be using a modern digital computer, plugged into an outlet for delivering electrical energy.

This creationist fallacy gives some insight into their whole mindset. Imagine the opposite of the scientific methods expectation that we must proceed from what is known. This particular creationist plaint, expects that science should have the entire chain (and more accurately the entire mesh), or that we should be working our discoveries from the other end of the chain. We should ignore what we know, and look for the primary cause of everything. Starting to sound familiar?

Eureka!! Now I see where we have gone wrong. Throw away all your computers and science related goods and chattels. What we need to look for, is some sort of supernatural creating thing. It will probably resemble a person, with moods and emotions etc.. It probably loves us (except the ones it kills in petulant tantrums) and answers prayers and performs supernatural miracles (which by by definition are impossible without violating the laws of nature). It will have a penis so that it can be thought of as a male person and should be called 'God' because that's the same word everybody else uses, and that will give us something in common to share with our neighbors, whom we should KILL if they dare to think they can con us into believing in their different version of the great, loving, prayer answering, miracle performing, penis possessing, supernatural male entity, who created the entire universe.

"Evolutions about how life became everything we see today, but it doesn't know how life began. You cant say, we don't know how live started off, but we do know how is became what it is today"

Really? Is that wot they learne'd you to thunk, at Sketerswamp   Elermentuhray, whur they dun tort yo grammuh an a spelleen so goodly?


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 06:45 AM on February 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is an interesting trick going on in the mind of the creationist. I have just begun notice how significant this effect is in the maintenance of self deception.

I was thinking the same thing about evolutionists.

The critical issue is that the creationist assumes the right to second guess the scientific establishment regarding it's established chain of causality.

No assumption necessary. We do have a right to second guess evolutionists first guess. Your chain of causality, while I concede that it is well established and seems to make sense, dangles helplessly from a hot air balloon subject to the winds of speculation.

In the event that something isn't known, the creationist claims to be able to criticize what is known, because the knowledge in question, is in regards to a cause, that precedes the effects which are understood.

The knowledge in question is based on a presupposition. The reason it should be criticized is because the same information interpreted from a different presupposition, results in a different application. To limit cause to purely naturalistic / materialistic influences narrows the realm of possibility thus limiting the applicability of the knowledge in question.

This is done in an attempt to establish that 'if a cause precedes it's effects, then we should be required to know about / understand / prove the cause, before we can argue the factuality of the effect.'

No, it's done in an attempt to establish the fact that there is more to life than understanding processes. To the purist evolutionist life is nothing but a process. That is, in my opinion, a much more dangerous "self deception" than believing in a creator. So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question. It's the application.

It almost sounds logical because in nature, a cause certainly must precede it's effects. But it should be obvious that the reductio ad absurdum of this expectation is that we must first understand the primary cause of everything before we can explain anything.

You seem to be trying to say that a creationist is by nature opposed to learning. I say that the primary cause is more important to application than to explanation. The available information is the same for you as it is for me. The question is why does your interpretation matter to you and why does mine matter to me. Since neither of us will know with absolute verifiable certainty the primary cause of everything the philosophical context is unavoidable.

Well firstly we should notice the difference between the existence of a phenomena (such as abiogensis) and the existence of our knowledge about it. It doesn't need for us to know about it for it to exist. Then we should notice, that we can know it conceptually and predict that it must exist, without knowing the mechanism by which it operates.

The same can be said for a creator.

In science we proceed from what is known and attempt to build a coherent understanding if the world in which the chains of cause and effect reasoning most certainly, quite neccecarily are un-attached at one end. The reason for this, is that we must be free to attach to this end of any chain new links which must be found by searching for evidence (empiricism).

But your chain is unattached at both ends. Unless you count the philosophical hot air balloon.

It is because the ends of the chain are allowed to float freely that we can attach whatever links are established as dependable knowledge, if and when they are discovered. An effect does not depend on it's cause to be understood before it can itself be understood. If that were true, then science would have gotten nowhere. You certainly wouldn't be using a modern digital computer, plugged into an outlet for delivering electrical energy.

I agree that discovery does not depend on cause in order for it to work. That is not the issue. At issue is what you do with the discovery or innovation and why.

This creationist fallacy gives some insight into their whole mindset. Imagine the opposite of the scientific methods expectation that we must proceed from what is known. This particular creationist plaint, expects that science should have the entire chain (and more accurately the entire mesh), or that we should be working our discoveries from the other end of the chain. We should ignore what we know, and look for the primary cause of everything. Starting to sound familiar?

On the contrary, you have demonstrated misunderstanding rather than insight. You are ignoring the history of scientific thought. You are painting with a broad brush a helpless mindless non-existent creationist who won't step outside unless he can trace each minuscule movement back to a puppet master god. I submit to you that the creationists I know are quite the opposite. Rather than being bound up by an endless retracing of an intellectual chain we are free in the knowledge that God created us to be creative, innovative and curious. And moreover, when we don't understand something or are being overwhelmed by forces outside of our control we can find peace and solace in the knowledge that He is greater than all of that yet cares enough about me to answer a tiny whispered heartfelt prayer.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:38 AM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Skepticus
This is an interesting trick going on in the mind of the creationist. I have just begun notice how significant this effect is in the maintenance of self deception.
I was thinking the same thing about evolutionists.
Same what? Same mind trick? If so, it doesn't seem likely.

Your chain of causality, while I concede that it is well established and seems to make sense, dangles helplessly from a hot air balloon subject to the winds of speculation.
What speculation?

Don't get me wrong. I know that there's speculation. But i wonder what speculation you're talking about.

I can't think of any speculation from which the whole Theory of Evolution could dangle from.

timbrx
Skepticus
In the event that something isn't known, the creationist claims to be able to criticize what is known, because the knowledge in question, is in regards to a cause, that precedes the effects which are understood.
The knowledge in question is based on a presupposition.
Which one? Abiogenesis? If so, it's not. If God Himself had created the first living cell (even when there's evidence that He didn't), the Theory of Evolution would still be perfectly valid.

The reason it should be criticized is because the same information interpreted from a different presupposition, results in a different application.
Care to cite an example? Examples are good.

To limit cause to purely naturalistic / materialistic influences narrows the realm of possibility thus limiting the applicability of the knowledge in question.
Are you saying that if we say "Perhaps God did it" we will be able to make better vaccines?
Otherwise i don't quite get what you mean by "limiting the applicability of the knowledge in question".

No, it's done in an attempt to establish the fact that there is more to life than understanding processes.
I couldn't agree more!

Unfortunately for your statement, we're talking about science here. And science IS about understanding processes.

To the purist evolutionist life is nothing but a process.
Biological life? Then yes, of course! What else could it be?

If you're talking about our existence as conscious entities, then it can be debatable.

Anyway, is there something wrong with a process?

That is, in my opinion, a much more dangerous "self deception" than believing in a creator.
A great number of people have been killed because of your beliefs. You know?

So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question.
It's not???
Perhaps for you (and it still amazes me). It IS the question for most creationists and "evolutionists" (i dislike that term very much). If its factuality wasn't the question i would not post here. And if it's not the question for you, why are you posting here?
It's the application.
Vaccines and gene therapy?

Anyway, you do sound like Flanders: "Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"

You seem to be trying to say that a creationist is by nature opposed to learning.
Well, it does seem like it's about a blind denial of anything that contradicts the scriptures.

But there are other types of creationists. Those who are in a myopic denial.

I say that the primary cause is more important to application than to explanation.
I'd like to know what you're talking about.
The available information is the same for you as it is for me.
So you keep saying. But creationism ignores MOST of the information.
The question is why does your interpretation matter to you and why does mine matter to me.
What makes you say that? Sorry, i just don't understand what you mean.

Since neither of us will know with absolute verifiable certainty the primary cause of everything
Completely true.
the philosophical context is unavoidable.
In what context is that context unavoidable?

It's quite avoidable when we're talking about Evolution, or agriculture, or changing a light bulb.

timbrx
Skepticus
Well firstly we should notice the difference between the existence of a phenomena (such as abiogensis) and the existence of our knowledge about it. It doesn't need for us to know about it for it to exist. Then we should notice, that we can know it conceptually and predict that it must exist, without knowing the mechanism by which it operates.
The same can be said for a creator.
You have an excellent point there, timbrx. I thought the same when i was reading it.

But your chain is unattached at both ends.
I guess one end is abiogenesis... What would be the other one?
Unless you count the philosophical hot air balloon.
What would it be?

Skeptikus
It is because the ends of the chain are allowed to float freely that we can attach whatever links are established as dependable knowledge, if and when they are discovered. An effect does not depend on it's cause to be understood before it can itself be understood. If that were true, then science would have gotten nowhere. You certainly wouldn't be using a modern digital computer, plugged into an outlet for delivering electrical energy.
Very true.

timbrx
I agree that discovery does not depend on cause in order for it to work.
Skepticus was actually talking about understanding, not discovering.
That is not the issue.
Are you sure? Because every creationist that has set foot in this forum makes a big deal of it.
At issue is what you do with the discovery or innovation and why.
What?? Then you don't believe in creationism because it's the truth, but because good things can be done with it?

Not vaccines and gene therapy, i bet.

Do you believe as you do (i still don't know much about it) because of its morality?

Skepticus
This creationist fallacy gives some insight into their whole mindset. Imagine the opposite of the scientific methods expectation that we must proceed from what is known. This particular creationist plaint, expects that science should have the entire chain (and more accurately the entire mesh), or that we should be working our discoveries from the other end of the chain. We should ignore what we know, and look for the primary cause of everything. Starting to sound familiar?
Hum... You're right...

Well, not entirely. Actually creationists don't believe or expect that. They just demand it from us (only when our statements go against the Bible), while doing quite the opposite.

timbrx
On the contrary, you have demonstrated misunderstanding rather than insight.
What contraty? I didn't get it.
You are ignoring the history of scientific thought.
How so? Are you talking about christian scientists?

(...)I submit to you that the creationists I know are quite the opposite.
Yeah, that's what i think too.
Rather than being bound up by an endless retracing of an intellectual chain...
...they forget about anything intellectual! Haha! Kidding.
...we are free in the knowledge that God created us to be creative, innovative and curious.
You're slaves to your Bible. For some creationists (most perhaps?) if you don't believe in it, you go to Hell.
And moreover, when we don't understand something or are being overwhelmed by forces outside of our control we can find peace and solace in the knowledge that He is greater than all of that
I like what you say.
yet cares enough about me to answer a tiny whispered heartfelt prayer.
Does He answer? How?

If you ask Him to reveal the truth behind this debate, will He?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:39 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, excellent first post, Skepticus.

You posted some things i had not considered.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:52 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, excellent first post, Skepticus.
You posted some things i had not considered.


Thanks wisp.

So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question.

It's not???
Yeah?!!  It's not???
Seems to me the entire point of the thread, was a question (touted in the guise of honest curiosity), that could only come from somebody attempting to discredit the factuality of evolution.

The reason it should be criticized is because the same information interpreted from a different presupposition, results in a different application.

Care to cite an example? Examples are good.

I get the feeling that Timbrx is using the word 'application' in a different context than you or I might. It sounds more like 'conclusion' than 'practical application'. Care to clear that up Timbrx? A little obfuscating and equivocating gets 'application' to sound synonymous with 'conclusion', which, with a little rhetorical nudge can turn into 'valid conclusion'.

Meanwhile, I think the same information obviously would lead to different conclusions, if in one group it were studied using rigorous reasoning and Ockham's Razor, while in another it were subjected to wishful thinking and superstition. But in the case of creationism, evidence is actually mostly ignored (unless it lends itself to confirmation bias).

The question is why does your interpretation matter to you and why does mine matter to me.

What makes you say that? Sorry, i just don't understand what you mean.
Since neither of us will know with absolute verifiable certainty the primary cause of everything

Completely true.
the philosophical context is unavoidable.

In what context is that context unavoidable?

The above is an allusion to typical hyperbolic, cultural relativist canard.
'if it all boils down to opinion then, factual knowledge just can't be attained'.
That of course is abject nonsense, which disregards the degrees of certainty which can be attained  by relative methods such as Ockham's Razor.

My interpretation matters to me because, it's the kind of interpretation, which leads to reliable knowledge. It leads to the ability to predict new discoveries and make technological advances. Not that all technology is good, but it is all good for demonstrating that you got your facts straight in the theoretical sciences. Science works.


timbrx

Skepticus
Well firstly we should notice the difference between the existence of a phenomena (such as abiogensis) and the existence of our knowledge about it. It doesn't need for us to know about it for it to exist. Then we should notice, that we can know it conceptually and predict that it must exist, without knowing the mechanism by which it operates.

The same can be said for a creator.

You have an excellent point there, timbrx. I thought the same when i was reading it.

We are not comparing the validity of evolution, with that of creationism. The OP was a plaint that evolution theory was incomplete without explaining the ultimate / primary cause of life and that it is somehow logically inconsistent if it doesn't do so. Even if this were true (it isn't), it doesn't give creationism a feather to stick in their cap.

Abiogensis may have been a historical fact, and even without our having an understanding of it, it would still lead to the existing mechanism we now observe and do understand. So I say again, that it (abiogenesis as a natural mechanism) doesn't need for us to know about it, or understand it, for it to exist. What has this go to do with God?

Even though we are not setting creation against evolution, how is that the same for God? Yes in the respect that both are hypothetical precursors to life on earth, but these hypothetical precursors are not equal contenders in the plausibility stakes. One is ipso facto, a prediction of biological evolution which will fit into the existing framework of biological understandings and explain more than it leaves unexplained.

Goddidit however, does not even require genes let alone an intimate fit with the genetic mechanism. When theories are put forward to account for natural abiogensis, we know very well that they will be expected to explain how they fit in with what is already known, and where they do dare to contradict what is already known, they will need to provide better explanations for the knowledge they contradict.

Goddidit however, accords with nothing but it's own superstitious bronze age prattlings. Even then it is generous with inconsistency and ambiguity. A world with such a capricious magical genie as God, doesn't require any explanation for how information about phenotypes are passed from one generation to another. For all creationists could care, they might get there by catching the bus. Goddidit could have been thrown out for it's lack of accord with evidence anytime since the downfall of the flat earth. For science it has.

The God of the gaps is made of something more malleable than putty. It was considered a good fit for Paley's Watchmaker, Even after Darwin, goddidit was invoked to explain what Darwin hadn't, as a primary cause. But notice that goddidit didn't seem to become any more plausible in light of this new information. There were no 'AH YES!! That's why 'God led his chosen people into that place... etc. There were no revelations of factual reality, that drew the two ideas closer.  

Christianity did not provide an explanation for the inheritance of traits. Like begets like is just a banal observation. We might suppose that God could have provided some hint's that demonstrated the he himself had a deeper understanding of genetics and could write an account that would at least in hindsight, seem more plausible in view of any modern discovery. No such luck. Natural selection came to town and laid waist to any need for God to design life in 'real time'. The question that some kind of God existed was still open to speculation. But for science God grew more distant and less befitting.

Imagine the creationist reception of Natural selection, had the bible, happened to have mentioned something like "...and beholdeth the markers of tidings within. [referring to genes] Each shall ye posseth unto thee, that like shall beget like and from thy loins shall spring forth the like of thy mother and the like of thy father". OK, I don't do old English well, but imaging a detailed section that unmistakably referred to genes.

On the contrary each discovery of the way in which things do work in the world, leads to the conclusion that the bible and other 'holy books' are even more irrelevant for the new knowledge.  

But your chain is unattached at both ends.

I guess one end is abiogenesis... What would be the other one?
Unless you count the philosophical hot air balloon.

What would it be?

Alas I am not doing well, it seems that I am even confusing my own kind. The chain in this metaphor, is a chain of cause and effect. Abiogenesis would not be attached to the chain yet because it isn't more than a speculative idea with a name.

The attached end in the case of evolution, would go back to all of the prevailing ideas which lead up to Darwin's inspiration aboard the HMS Beagle. That would include the immense geological times being opened up by Lyell's geological ideas,  the prevailing understandings of biology and comparative anatomy by the likes of Haeckel and so forth.

Skepticus
This creationist fallacy gives some insight into their whole mindset. Imagine the opposite of the scientific methods expectation that we must proceed from what is known. This particular creationist plaint, expects that science should have the entire chain (and more accurately the entire mesh), or that we should be working our discoveries from the other end of the chain. We should ignore what we know, and look for the primary cause of everything. Starting to sound familiar?

Hum... You're right...

Well, not entirely. Actually creationists don't believe or expect that. They just demand it from us (only when our statements go against the Bible), while doing quite the opposite.


But my point was that they do in all reality jump to a conclusion which explains everything in one fell swoop. 'We'll theres this magic guy called God see... and anything that doesn't seem possible through the natural chain of cause and effect, well, Goddidit and God did everything else too, unless natural laws are discovered to account for it. But God made the universe so he even made nature and all of the natural laws. So goddidit, goddidit, goddidit and !!GODDIDIT!!

That pretty much takes care of a universal all in one explanation by creationists. Now I point again to the expectation to have a previous cause explained in advance. That of course invokes a regress that is bounded only by some ultimate cause of all causes. When you think that way you must know everything before you can say you understand anything. Of course what the religious folk believe, has little to do with any actual understanding of the natural workings of the universe.

What I find annoying, is that creationists don't ever forward objections which are based on understanding. They cant possibly be using proper reasoning skills, they cant possibly be understanding parsimony and they certainly can not be understanding the theoretical idea they are criticizing nor the mountains of incontrovertible evidence that supports it. The idea that evolution by natural selection, depends upon abiogenesis is drop dead, bald assed, straw man if there ever was one.

Creationist elders can just make up throw away cheap shots like this till the cows come home. The docile followers just continue to bleat them over, in ignorant repetition, without ever caring to understand the absurdity. Creationists expect to be able to approach free thinking rationalists and solicit an explanation to a  rhetorical strawman, in the guise of honest curiosity, when they couldn't possibly understand any valid explanation given anyhow, because they simply don't understand the theory and if they did understand the theory (or even a modicum of science) the bogus nature of the question would be obvious.

The (non)-thinking process is so alien to objective rationalism, that it is not possible to have a meaningful discourse and convince a creationist that some scientific idea is a fact of reality. They belong to a mind set that does not seek understanding. The question which started this thread would not have been a necessary with a very very basic understanding of science. The pretense that it was innocent curiosity shot out the window, the second it revealed itself as a creationist strawman. Any attempt to second guess evolution, without even the most basic understanding of it, is invariably motivated by a creationist agenda and replete with rhetorical strawmen.

Advice: GO AWAY AND LEARN HOW EVOLUTION WORKS FIRST. THEN ASK INFORMED, INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 10:20 AM on February 27, 2009 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Skepticus at 10:20 AM on February 27, 2009 :


Advice: GO AWAY AND LEARN HOW EVOLUTION WORKS FIRST. THEN ASK INFORMED, INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS.


If we were all to be informed as to how something works before asking a question then there really would be no need for the question.  Pretty harsh words and very exclusive.  And after reading some of your posts Skepticus you have very bold harsh words towards those that have a belief in God.  We can all agree that evolution does not provide an answer as to the origen of life.  There is nothing wrong with asking the question though.  I am not sorry for doubting atheism, I cannot deny God and who He has revealed himself to be.  I'm sure evolution is a very vague term with multiple applications to it, and yet so is the name of God.  God is a vague term with many multiple applications.  Many throw around both terms of evolution and god around without any real precise meaning.  When I use the term God I am precisely using the God who reaveled Himself in the Bible, as a triune Godhead with a numerical value of one, who not only will judge the entire human race for all of there actions, pouring out wrath and vengence on all who have violated His Holy Law of Morality. Yet also a loving Father who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, to make a way out of His wrath, through faith in the death, burial and ressurection of His Son, and repenting of your sins.  His workings are revelead to us through the Holy Spirit who is the deepest part of who He is.  Specifically I speak of God who reaveled Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  All that has been created through Him is for Him, to glorify God in His Holiness and power.  The biggest problem with an atheistic world view is that it does not present any evidence, or reasoning to the origen of life.  And I believe the problem I have with evolution is not so much with micro-evolution natural adaptation, but is more so with macro-evolution, the evolving of one species to the next.  (If any terms are used out of context in regards to evolution please feel free to correct me.)  It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.

(Edited by dubie903 2/27/2009 at 3:01 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:59 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dubie:If we were all to be informed as to how something works before asking a question then there really would be no need for the question.  Pretty harsh words and very exclusive.  And after reading some of your posts Skepticus you have very bold harsh words towards those that have a belief in God.  We can all agree that evolution does not provide an answer as to the origen of life.  There is nothing wrong with asking the question though.  I am not sorry for doubting atheism, I cannot deny God and who He has revealed himself to be.

dubie my man,  from the stand point of a biologist, "evolution" does not cover the origens of life...That would be abiogenesis.

dubie:I'm sure evolution is a very vague term with multiple applications to it, and yet so is the name of God.  God is a vague term with many multiple applications.  Many throw around both terms of evolution and god around without any real precise meaning.  When I use the term God I am precisely using the God who reaveled Himself in the Bible...


Which bible are you talking about?  How can we be certain that your tranlation and interpretation of the Bible is correct?  There are 100+ different English translations of the old and new testaments and 1500+ christian sects and denominations...Why can't christians get god's word straight?


doubie:...as a triune Godhead with a numerical value of one, who not only will judge the entire human race for all of there actions, pouring out wrath and vengence on all who have violated His Holy Law of Morality.


So let me get this straight...Your god (who according to the KJV is omniscient) creates humans that he knows before hand are going to sin...Yet he still punishes them with eternal damnation.
By any reasonable standards this is extremely psychotic behavior.  You sir, worship a sick f&*$.

doubie:Yet also a loving Father who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, to make a way out of His wrath, through faith in the death, burial and ressurection of His Son, and repenting of your sins.


So when your perfect god first tried teaching humans a lesson with a catastrophic flood he failed...That is what your saying?

Ok let's continue...So to save humans from eternal damnation, your "omnipotent" god boinked a virgin Jewish girl (who was married ),  came out of her womb as his "son" and faked his suicide around the age of 30 to give humans a chance at eternal salvation?!!!

MMMMkay

doubie:His workings are revelead to us through the Holy Spirit who is the deepest part of who He is.  Specifically I speak of God who reaveled Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.


doubie can you read ancient Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic?  How do you know that your bible is the correct bible?

doubie:All that has been created through Him is for Him, to glorify God in His Holiness and power.  The biggest problem with an atheistic world view is that it does not present any evidence, or reasoning to the origen of life.

Doubie google "abiogenesis" ...Oh and there are millions of christians who believe in the scientific merits of studying abiogenesis and evolution. They are not just "atheist" teachings.

doubie:And I believe the problem I have with evolution is not so much with micro-evolution natural adaptation, but is more so with macro-evolution, the evolving of one species to the next.  (If any terms are used out of context in regards to evolution please feel free to correct me.)  It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.


Doubie my man, how much biology have you studied?  Seriously bro, do you really believe there is no evidence supporting evolution?

Or is that just what you want to believe?





 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:50 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dubie
Skepticus
Advice: GO AWAY AND LEARN HOW EVOLUTION WORKS FIRST. THEN ASK INFORMED, INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS.
If we were all to be informed as to how something works before asking a question then there really would be no need for the question.  Pretty harsh words and very exclusive.
I'm with dubie on this one.

I don't like knowledge Nazism.

I understand what you say, Skepticus. But there's always someone at whose side we're shameful ignorants.

I'm shamefully ignorant about History, for instance. :S

By the way, welcome back, dubie!

You're extreme in your beliefs (like one should always be), and speak up even against other creationists. I respect that.

And after reading some of your posts Skepticus you have very bold harsh words towards those that have a belief in God.
Not so, dubie. There are people who believe in God, and don't believe in the Bible, or don't take it literally.
We can all agree that evolution does not provide an answer as to the origen of life.  There is nothing wrong with asking the question though.
Indeed.
I am not sorry for doubting atheism,
What does "doubting atheism" mean?
I'm sure evolution is a very vague term with multiple applications to it,
Very true.
and yet so is the name of God.
Very true!!
God is a vague term with many multiple applications.
Lots.
Many throw around both terms of evolution and god around without any real precise meaning.
Actually, when WE talk about Evolution in this forum, we mean something quite precise, i'd say.
When I use the term God I am precisely using the God who reaveled Himself in the Bible, as a triune Godhead with a numerical value of one, who not only will judge the entire human race for all of there actions, pouring out wrath and vengence on all who have violated His Holy Law of Morality.
Yeah, that would be Yahweh. Extreme guy!

Hardcore music would be appropriate when He does that.

If i'm wrong about christianism, and God Himself pours His wrath and vengeance on me, i'd like to hear some hardcore music when the time comes. Seems appropriate.

Hum...

No, i take that back. Verdi's Dies Irae would be much better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFFHaz9GsY

Listen to it and tell me if i'm wrong!

dubie, i think your god is cruel and unfair, and i would stand against him even if i had no chance. Even if he had created everything and has the right to do what he pleases.

If your god is just, i don't see it. And if he sends me to Hell for not seeing it, it doesn't sound very just...

Yet also a loving Father who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, to make a way out of His wrath, through faith in the death, burial and ressurection of His Son, and repenting of your sins.  His workings are revelead to us through the Holy Spirit who is the deepest part of who He is.
Are there parts of Him with different depths?

Well, feeling wrath seems quite shallow...
Specifically I speak of God who reaveled Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  All that has been created through Him is for Him, to glorify God in His Holiness and power.
Christians should be more like you.

They feel ok leading a semi-christian life, and kiiinda believing in its principles.

You're a true christian.

Buuut you could cheer up a little bit...

The biggest problem with an atheistic world view is that it does not present any evidence, or reasoning to the origen of life.
Why do you keep talking about atheism?

Science does show evidence regarding abiogenesis. Science doesn't know about atheism.

And I believe the problem I have with evolution is not so much with micro-evolution natural adaptation,
Yeah, i guess that's what you meant when you said that we tossed the word "Evolution" meaning nothing concrete.

You're wrong about it though. There's no difference between micro and macro. It's like saying "small" and "big".

Some moron coined that term (i don't remember who, but i can look it up if you want). I don't know why. That pair of terms mean nothing concrete, and provide no intellectual advantage whatsoever.
but is more so with macro-evolution, the evolving of one species to the next.
Many creationists believe that all felines developed (by some process that shouldn't be called 'evolution' for some reason) from one pair of animals in the ark.

So animals would have evolved/developed super rapidly since the flood event, into a great variety of species.

Did you know that there have been 160 proboscidean (elephant) species?

Did you know that there are THREE elephant species alive today?

How many proboscideans were carried into the ark?

(If any terms are used out of context in regards to evolution please feel free to correct me.)
I actually feel bad about having given you the term "microevolution", and then taking it away from you once you came to terms with it.

It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.
Huh?

I don't get that. But i believe that God has little to do with evidence.

What do you mean by "evidence for being an atheist"? Evidence supporting the notion that God doesn't exist?

If 'evidence for being an evolutionist' means 'evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, then you're wrong again. There's plenty of evidence.

Name any animal behavior, organ, structure, anatomy, whatever you want. It's very unlikely that we won't be able to give you the evolutionary reason.

To show you more about what i mean i would need to know more about your beliefs (as they differ from one creationist to the next). About the history of life, i mean.

Animals in the garden of Eden, the ark, the 'kinds', and all that.

To us, everything speaks of Evolution.

If some thing/s don't seem to fit in your opinion, show us.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:33 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question.


It's not???
Yeah?!!  It's not???

Yea, it's not. The "effect" of origin is the physical reality. I know it exists, so why would I question it?

Seems to me the entire point of the thread, was a question (touted in the guise of honest curiosity), that could only come from somebody attempting to discredit the factuality of evolution.

I thought the question was "How do you think life began?" which is why your first post confuses me. Rather than answering the question you attempt to diminish both the question and the questioner.

Care to cite an example? Examples are good.

Sure. A friend if mine was diagnosed with cancer today. The doctors will probably give him chemo and radiation and along with surgery. Our whole church will be praying for him. (application based on the presupposition that God created us, cares about us, and can guide the doctors, influence the cancer and most importantly give him peace about the situation. )

I get the feeling that Timbrx is using the word 'application' in a different context than you or I might. It sounds more like 'conclusion' than 'practical application'. Care to clear that up Timbrx? A little obfuscating and equivocating gets 'application' to sound synonymous with 'conclusion', which, with a little rhetorical nudge can turn into 'valid conclusion'.

No, I really mean application. As in applying what you know in accordance with your beliefs.  

Meanwhile, I think the same information obviously would lead to different conclusions, if in one group it were studied using rigorous reasoning and Ockham's Razor, while in another it were subjected to wishful thinking and superstition. But in the case of creationism, evidence is actually mostly ignored (unless it lends itself to confirmation bias).

Sorry, skepticus. You may try and diminish belief in creation as ignorance, bias, wishful thinking and superstition but it doesn't change the fact that there are many fine minds out there who contribute a great deal to quality of life in ALL fields yet they maintain their belief in a creator God.

the philosophical context is unavoidable.


In what context is that context unavoidable?


The above is an allusion to typical hyperbolic, cultural relativist canard.
'if it all boils down to opinion then, factual knowledge just can't be attained'.
That of course is abject nonsense, which disregards the degrees of certainty which can be attained  by relative methods such as Ockham's Razor.

My interpretation matters to me because, it's the kind of interpretation, which leads to reliable knowledge. It leads to the ability to predict new discoveries and make technological advances. Not that all technology is good, but it is all good for demonstrating that you got your facts straight in the theoretical sciences. Science works.

There it is. Skepticus has a philosophy.His interpretation matters to him because...
Mine matters to me because...
The thing I can't figure out is why skepticus is so hostile. If you are so sure that your interpretations are founded on the right kind of thinking than shouldn't you be trying to educate instead of criticize? Talk about obfuscation. So far you have blamed creationists for YOU not wanting to answer the 1st question.

I'll pick up on the rest of scepticus' excuses later.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:35 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK. Let me respond to this first:

It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.


Well firstly there are mountains of cross correlating interdisciplinary evidence, that backs the evolution to the hilt. It is inconceivable to explain (rationally) the development of life any other way. The modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution is as rock solid, as the relativistic formulation of gravity.

As for evidence for 'being an atheist'. You don't need evidence for being an atheist. You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God. That is very true in and of itself. But then I notice that there are Muslims and Christians and Jews and Bahias and Moonies and... on it goes. I notice that all of these people seem to get their mutually inconsistent beliefs in more or less the same manner.

A) They are indoctrinated by well meaning converts and...

B) They don't have the critical thinking skills to avoid jumping to conclusions, based on wishful thinking. The prospective religions of each candidate, provide a stitched up case of circular logic for them buy into and offer bribery and blackmail as incentives. It's a con job (and a pretty transparent one at that) right from the very beginning.

Atheists don't need to provide evidence to support their disbelief in any Gods, any more than you need to provide evidence to support your disbelief of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

Now. Let's ponder how this thread became a contest between Religion... no... make that Christianity and evolution. After all the subject matter of abiogenesis should not call for a discussion of religion and nor should evolution. There are many devoted Christians who recognize evolution as an undeniable fact of the natural world. I don't know how they reconcile the improbability of their creator in their own head, but that's a different matter.

If the question which started this thread, were honestly only an innocent, curious attempt, to understand how abiogenesis supports evolution, then religion should never need to come into it. If your guess about where religion came into this discussion, was 'the first mention of religion', you'd be wrong.

A religious pretext was implicit in the original question itself:

Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose?


This is precisely the sort of rhetorical question that creationist sheep are primed to ask, just like the one about 'which evolutionary process increases information in in the genome?' You will find that the people who ask this, do not understand natural selection, nor do they understand Information theory, etc etc... All they understand, is that their church ministers have told them, that if they can't get X,Y and Z answers to these questions then it supports G,O and D as the better alternative.

People do not ask this kind of question out of honest personal curiosity. And then to demonstrate that my suspicion of a religious pretense are accurate we read this:

Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began


Apart from the obvious non-sequitur does this sound like honest curiosity, or a belligerent, self righteous, cocky proclamation? Again, it is precisely the kind of proclamation that is made by know nothing creationists, who  are positively motivated to denigrate evolution precisely because they have been indoctrinated to think, if evolution is false then Goddidit. I am inclined to call a spade a spade and I saw this religious pretext coming a mile away.

Now, having said that. There is a BIG difference between having the humility to ask honest questions about evolution, from the point of view of somebody (religious or otherwise) who honestly wants to understand evolution, and somebody who comes forth with a smartarse question, pretending to be curious rather than smug and self assured, especially if that question comes with a petulant, almost hostile demand not to be attacked.

Frankly, I reserve the right to behold with contempt, anybody who doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in understanding an idea, which they are vigilantly attempting to discredit. It is one thing to understand an idea and criticize it intellectually from the inside, and another to dream up irrelevant, fallacious, strawmen that seek to discredit it, without any understanding of the subject whatsoever. One approach is critical thinking, the other is political slander and smear campaigning.  

To learn about evolution you need to start from a sensible point and work through the subject in an orderly manner. Does anybody here really think that evolution (or any other subject for that matter) could really be taught by debunking misconceptions about it?

Why is it that a person so full of themselves about how wrong evolution is, is also invariably blissfully; nay, willfully ignorant of how it works. In fact they usually don't even have the faintest grasp of proper reasoning skills either, nor of the evidence which supports it. Yet the very obscure and peripheral subject of abiogenesis, they can feign an interest in? Like they could even understand any explanation which might be given, without some background understanding of evolution. Puhht!!  

a million misconceptions are dead in the water once you can see the inevitability of evolution. Now I don't care if you then believe in your silly imaginary creator friend; or even the tooth fairy or the Werewolves of London. I might debate these things in a more detached philosophical manner, but if you insist upon involving your delusional fantasies as a primary motive, it a willful smear campaign against objective scientific knowledge of nature, then I will see you coming, and pull no punches.

wisp
dubie
Skepticus
Advice: GO AWAY AND LEARN HOW EVOLUTION WORKS FIRST. THEN ASK INFORMED, INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS.

If we were all to be informed as to how something works before asking a question then there really would be no need for the question.  Pretty harsh words and very exclusive.


I'm with dubie on this one.

I don't like knowledge Nazism.

I understand what you say, Skepticus. But there's always someone at whose side we're shameful ignorants.


I don't want to seem stubborn, and perhaps I shouldn't yell my point, but I do get so angry at the disingenuous ploys, when I am just so comfortable in my own skin that I am only trying to be honest with myself and only serving the truth, and these abhorrent little wretches come along, trying to kick sand into the face of reason. It also rubs a fair amount of salt into my wounds, when they try to pretend that they are morally superior, which they do by subtle inference (never by direct claim)...

But anyhow. As I pointed out in the previous post, my primary qualm, is with the pretense that a person can criticize something that they have not attempted to learn about. Coming into discussion forums with willfully disingenuous misconceptions about an idea, does not count for attempting to understand it in my book. Pretending to be innocently curious with such a question, just adds insult to injury. Again:

If we were all to be informed as to how something works before asking a question then there really would be no need for the question.


If you understood how evolution by natural selection works you would understand how irrelevant the question about abiogenesis is. There is no need for the question in any event. Honest curiosity is balderdash as I have pointed out and that is not a worthy question for a person who is curious about how evolution works to ask.

Why in any event are we 'evolutionists' expected to spoon feed religious people, by attempting to exhaustively type out an explanation for how evolution actually does work, whenever
somebody comes along with an appalling misconception? Are we expected to not only repeat swathes of freely available information, but to serve it up in specific relevance to irrelevant and disingenuous questions leading to strawman arguments?

That's being just a tad polite and accommodating isn't it? In any case you wont learn anything about evolution by starting off with an irrelevant subject. The recourse to asking helpful questions comes into play when you are trying to attain a GENUINE understanding of a subject, and you get stuck. There is no mistaking a reliant, intelligent question asked out of honest curiosity. That will be couched in terms of evolution as the process we know it to be and will demonstrate some preceding understanding. All intelligent questions do.

I'm with dubie on this one.

I don't like knowledge Nazism.


Huh!!? Then you misunderstand. You would have to go nearly impossible lengths to find anybody who cares more passionately about freedom of information and knowledge. Really I do mean it. I am an open source enthusiast and advocate. I am self taught [year 10 dropout] in all scientific matters and have no tertiary qualifications. I am passionately enthusiastic about self learning and popular science reading. I don't have an intellectually elitist neuron in my brain. I am about as pro-sharing and pro-community as they get.

It is precisely because knowledge about evolution is so freely available that it is inexcusable, to ask people stupid questions, (while feigning honest curiosity), when there is nothing to stop  anybody from learning about it for themselves. Here's the massive checklist you will need:

  • Got internet?

  • Can use search engine?

  • Can read and English documents?


Well done. I recomend Wikia Search Because it is collaborative and not biased to corporate schmoozing. It's results can be edited rated and annotated etc.. It really is just better.  When you have legitimate questions then I will personally be at the beckon call of anybody willing to learn. But generally forums such as this and those at sites which explain evolution, welcome people who have sincere honest questions.  

Here are a couple of links to get started with:

OK. I just did a wikia search myself and found this:

The Explain Evolution Challange. I haven't watched the responses myself yet so it should be good.

How about: Understanding Evolution

And of course: Introduction to Evolution (at Wikipedia)

Finally (And I love this one): Growing Up in the Universe

Good Luck, Christians learning evolution. Good luck all.




-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:49 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with skepticus, the original poster was merely baiting a chance to reflect his/her own disdain for evolution with the original question.  Otherwise he/she wouldn't come back and say:

'Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began'.

It wasn't a question asked with honest intent to learn something.  

And skeptius is right, evolution is supported by evidence from the broad spectrum of scientific disiplines - not just biology, but also geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.  And that's a claim that Creationism can't make.  

In fact, that's why Creationism fails.  It not only has the burden of trying to disprove evolution as a process, but it has to discredit basic concepts from other scientific fields as well.  For instance, Creationists attempt to  sweep modern geology aside by presenting 'flood theory'.  Never mind plate tectonics is undisputed in the scientific community.

Creationists have to try to find fault with radiometric dating.  Never mind atomic theory, which is the foundation of chemistry, and quantum theory in physics.  

And astronomy, where the Creationism idea first started to crumble 500 years ago with Copernicus and Kepler.

Creationism lost long ago in the scientific arena.  It can only compete among the scientifically illiterate.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:02 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution is as rock solid, as the relativistic formulation of gravity.


This is a most common blunder. You see gravity can be observed and repeated using the scientific method. Evolution on the other hand is never observed, it is pretty much entirely imaginary. It's not that we're actually too stupid to imagine it, it's that we don't happen to be as believing as you faithful evolutionists are.We see limits where you see none. We like to see evidence for scientific claims, you all extrapolate merrily on your minor observations and expect everyone 'with a brain' to follow merrily along like the pied piper and the rats - remember that one?

You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God.


Except for what has been created.

Of course you don't believe that we are created so all you see is evolution when you look at life. You also apparently 'believe' that against all odds 'life' organized itself. You know that nobody has evidence of such a thing but with a giant step of faith you believe it in any case.

Either life was created or it created itself. You think the one choice is obvious; I think the other is obvious. I've had enough evolution shoved down my throat to believe it but I don't. You can imagine that I have insufficient intelligence if you like, but that does not make evolution any more believable. If I were trying to impress you with my brain power, I could just pretend to believe it and that way I would be considered to be more intelligent with far less effort. In fact I bet your yardstick for measurable intelligence is the ability to imagine that evolution happened.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:17 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 3:35 PM on February 28, 2009 :
So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question.


It's not???
Yeah?!!  It's not???

Yea, it's not. The "effect" of origin is the physical reality. I know it exists, so why would I question it?


For starters who is talking about YOU? Only you. Secondly we were not talking about origin (by which I assume you mean abiogenesis/creation). We were talking about the factuality of evolution by natural selection.

here's the point where you rudely interjected your irrelevant banter about what is being discussed, beginning with what I said first:


Skepticus:This is done in an attempt to establish that 'if a cause precedes it's effects, then we should be required to know about / understand / prove the cause, before we can argue the factuality of the effect.'


Note that I was the one speaking here and referring to the disingenuous ploy by creationists to suggest that a scientific idea is invalid, if it has not been explained in terms of a previous cause. This is done and the reason I am pointing it out in this thread, is that this is the founding premise of this thread.

JSF16:
Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began.


Can't one? Apparently one is talking out of ones bottom then and thinks one knows better than the scientific establishment, you know the ones who bought you electricity, mining metallurgy, medicine, space exploration, electronics & digital computing, roads, housing, agriculture, optics, plastics, etc.. etc...

JSF16:
You cant say, we don't know how live started off, but we do know how is became what it is today. If evolution was a building, it's entire cornerstone, its foundation is gone.


Pure ignorant slop and facile Bu---it. But not to digress. That is what I was responding in my quote above, to and where you tried to make off with the discussion. Here's your response:

Timbrx:
No, it's done in an attempt to establish the fact that there is more to life than understanding processes.
To the purist evolutionist life is nothing but a process. That is, in my opinion, a much more dangerous "self deception" than believing in a creator. So it is not the factuality of the effect that is in question. It's the application.


Notice that nobody was asking you to explain your motives for doing anything. Also notice the motive for the original question is clearly revealed as an anti-evolutionary hook that the original poster JSF16 blatantly gives away in the above two posts. If this is too hard to follow, then perhaps I shouldn't be amazed that some people cant grasp something as simple as natural selection. It is the factuality of the effect (shorthand here for evolution by natural selection) that is being questioned and it is clearly stated as such.


Skepticus:Seems to me the entire point of the thread, was a question (touted in the guise of honest curiosity), that could only come from somebody attempting to discredit the factuality of evolution.

I thought the question was "How do you think life began?"

Are you blind? Does your browser only support one way scrolling or what? Save the effort here's that question once again:

JSF16:
Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose?


And your's again... "How do you think life began?" The only word in your version that even appears in the original is 'life'. Well, full credits for remembering one word at least. That's generous, because the subject of the sentence was actually evolution and as was pointed out, that is the subject being disputed, whatever la-la land your cloud is floating off to.

which is why your first post confuses me. Rather than answering the question you attempt to diminish both the question and the questioner.


So far, I would think that tying your own shoelace would confuse you. As has been pointed out, the question is irrelevant to the subject of evolution by natural selection. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. I pointed this out by generalising on the falsification of any claim that calls for an effect to be explained only if an explanation of it's cause can also be provided.

Skepticus:
In science we proceed from what is known and attempt to build a coherent understanding if the world [I meant 'of the world' btw] in which the chains of cause and effect reasoning most certainly, quite necessarily are un-attached at one end. The reason for this, is that we must be free to attach to this end of any chain new links which must be found by searching for evidence (empiricism).


wisp:
Care to cite an example? Examples are good.

Sure. A friend if mine was diagnosed with cancer today. The doctors will probably give him chemo and radiation and along with surgery. Our whole church will be praying for him. (application based on the presupposition that God created us, cares about us, and can guide the doctors, influence the cancer and most importantly give him peace about the situation. )

So... Is it that god doesn't know about your friend having cancer (and I'm very sorry to hear about this)? Are you quite sure God wont give your friend what ever help he needs/deserves, unless you all plead with God and lobby him to do the right thing? What a bastard. Or is it you know better than God what the right thing to do is, so he needs your counsel? Can't be to bright, if he needs you to tell him what to do. Can I suggest that rather than standing around in a room with you hands in the air like a bunch of imbeciles pretending to be TV antennas, and talking to an imaginary friend, you could instead bake some cakes and have a sale to help fund cancer research or something like that.


Skepticus:
I get the feeling that Timbrx is using the word 'application' in a different context than you or I might...

No, I really mean application. As in applying what you know in accordance with your beliefs.  


Thanks for clearing that up then. But whatever you mean by it, it (I don't much care), it isn't relevant because you brought it in as a red herring, when we were dealing with the attack on evolution from the OP.


Skepticus:
Meanwhile, I think the same information obviously would lead to different conclusions, if in one group it were studied using rigorous reasoning and Ockham's Razor, while in another it were subjected to wishful thinking and superstition. But in the case of creationism, evidence is actually mostly ignored (unless it lends itself to confirmation bias).


Sorry, skepticus. You may try and diminish belief in creation as ignorance, bias, wishful thinking and superstition but it doesn't change the fact that there are many fine minds out there who contribute a great deal to quality of life in ALL fields yet they maintain their belief in a creator God.


To put that another way: The fact that there are many fine minds out there who contribute a great deal to quality of life in ALL fields yet they maintain their belief in a creator God, doesn't change the fact that belief in creation as ignorance, bias, wishful thinking and superstition.

So why then do these fine productive benevolent minds, feel the need to interject and attempt derail debates in which there is an attempt to defend evolution against the sly underhanded onslaughts of fundamentalist Christianity? The irrelevance of your interjections is just plain annoying, but I also ponder why, if you were a tad more conservative, you might rush to defend this anti-intellectual crud, rather than washing your own hands of it. Hmmm?

The thing I can't figure out is why skepticus is so hostile. If you are so sure that your interpretations are founded on the right kind of thinking than shouldn't you be trying to educate instead of criticize? Talk about obfuscation. So far you have blamed creationists for YOU not wanting to answer the 1st question.


When you are ready to pull your head out if it and wipe the sphincter marks off your neck, you may notice that I have made it abundantly clear that the question is loaded creationist rhetoric and that it is quite irrelevant. It is an attack on evolution using the implications of a total strawman.

Sorry I don't have any coloured kinder blocks to spell this out with, so that you might understand it, but it is evolution that is being attacked in this discourse and I am defending it. The criticism is abundantly addressed towards the subject matter, whatever I may think of the creationists involved. The motive is dishonest and the intent is willfully disingenuous. My saying so is not an attack, it is a defense. You are defending the attacker and calling me the attacker. Get f.. umm Real.

I tend to be a little hostile, because this is the kind of dishonest crap I see creationists doing all the time. Strawmen, red herrings, oh yeah and not to mention attacking incognito, and then crying 'I am being attacked' when the defense is rightfully launched. I may barely mask my contempt for such dishonest tactics, but I don't move my eye off the ball. My advice is that you do the same. Stick to the point in discussion and stop wearing your bleeding heart on your sleeve.

I'll pick up on the rest of scepticus' excuses later.

Yes, I can see you are trying to taunt me with mild insults. Don't bother explaining what it is I am meant to be making excuses for, I'm sure it's another red herring, to waste time on. Skepticus is spelled with a 'k' as the second letter by the way.

I'll pick up on the rest of scepticus' excuses later.

OK! Unless you change tack, I deal with your muddle headed blathering, emotional pleading and irrelevancies then. CU

PS: On second thoughts it's probably better if I ignore you from now on, unless you begin to comprehend what is being discussed and manage to become relevant/coherent.

Chow.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 10:26 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Frankly, I reserve the right to behold with contempt, anybody who doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in understanding an idea, which they are vigilantly attempting to discredit. It is one thing to understand an idea and criticize it intellectually from the inside, and another to dream up irrelevant, fallacious, strawmen that seek to discredit it, without any understanding of the subject whatsoever. One approach is critical thinking, the other is political slander and smear campaigning.

skepticus, do you even read what you write? This contemptible behavior is EXACTLY what you have exhibited towards creationism throughout all of your posts. It is classic "pot calling the kettle black" (colloquialism for wisp).

Then you misunderstand. You would have to go nearly impossible lengths to find anybody who cares more passionately about freedom of information and knowledge. Really I do mean it. I am an open source enthusiast and advocate.

As evidenced by your open contempt for anyone who believes in creation? And telling them to go away? You presume to know that a creationist by nature can't know anything about evolution. And than you mock their beliefs while demonstrating a willful lack of understanding of their beliefs and completely dismissing them as some sort of weakness or defect. Try debating on the merits of the argument rather than the character of the arguer. So what if JSF16 what trying to bait you. If your explanation is strong enough it should stand up in spite of criticism.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:36 AM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:17 AM on March 1, 2009 :
The modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution is as rock solid, as the relativistic formulation of gravity.


This is a most common blunder.


Here we go again. Another fundy who can tell you with absolute conviction that evolution is false, but cant produce the tiniest smattering  of evidence that they actually understand it. Other than spouting the same deliberately missinformed lies of deluded, died in the wool, bible bashing liars, like Ham and Gish, what have you got to say on the matter of evolution?

You see gravity can be observed and repeated using the scientific method.


OH Good. I'm glad that gravity can be repeated. I was rather hopping for some gravity tomorrow.

Evolution on the other hand is never observed, it is pretty much entirely imaginary.


Now this is what I am talking about, when I refer to the pap and drivel of the standard creationist dog and pony show. So you had the big colorful creation bus come to your town too huh? I could waste an hour explaining the details of this deliberate deception of creationist rhetoric, but as I pointed out these are well refuted strawmen. In my previous posts I criticize the inability of creationists to refute evolution based on an actual understanding of the idea. The above claim is an outright lie. The refutations are plentiful and easy to find.

Now, let me guess, you want to play a game of 'lets pretend there never was any refutations, and you are just presenting the hackneyed creationist lie as if you were the first to mention it'. Make the silly old evolutionists, repeatedly knock down the same old strawmen over and over and the regurgitate the same lies everywhere, as if you had never heard them refuted.

Why is it that a creationist never comes forward with a state of the art argument to advance the debate into uncharted territory, one which deals with the abundance of refutations that has been offered? Why are they always blissfully ignorant of the plentiful rebukes to their dishonest fabricated canard?

It's not that we're actually too stupid to imagine it, it's that we don't happen to be as believing as you faithful evolutionists are.


Oh sh--t this is rich. He heheheh ho ho. So you are all (taking the liberty of speaking for creationists in general of course) such critical thinking skeptics that you wouldn't believe something which you can't observe directly huh? Is that how your imaginary friend taught you to be skeptical? HAW HAW HAAAW Hee heee he he ho ho.

Do you really test your beliefs? How come you haven't gone looking for the refutations of the claim "Evolution on the other hand is never observed" Why are you not addressing those refutations? Is it because you are just swallowing creationist claptrap uncritically? looks like it to me. Don't expect me or any other evolutionist to spoon feed you.  What you are spouting is complete crap and if you don't know it, it's because you don't want to know it.

We see limits where you see none.

Limits like magical sky jujus which create entire universes with magical powers, and talking snakes huh?


We like to see evidence for scientific claims, you all extrapolate merrily on your minor observations and expect everyone 'with a brain' to follow merrily along like the pied piper and the rats - remember that one?


Yeah like all the bleating, subservient followers of your fairytale fantasy book, in Church every week bleating their blind faithful subservience, to the ignorant rantings of bronze age barbarians who invented your disgusting, violent, jealous, petty, vein, megalomaniac God.


You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God.


Except for what has been created.


No. Sorry you are merely asserting that it is created. 'It exists' perhaps we can say that with confidence, but creation is an act and it implies deliberate intent. Intent by whom? Your God? Or why not Allah? Or the flying spaghetti monster? Or why not just - 'It exists? You're not even trying to defend your worldview with the crappy throw away line "Except for what has been created." How bloody lame.

And again, If you were so skeptical, so keen to explore the widespread refutations of your claims, you would know that this claim you make is also old hat, and instead offer new food for thought.

Why should I have to be the one to say yes but... Your implied creator, is not an explanation but a supernatural scapegoat if magical gods can exist then why not magical universes. Something had to exist without cause why no the universe and why not without miracle stuff?  

So, you can't perhaps imaging the universe ultimately having it's own inbuilt logical explanation for everything (I mean in principal) Because we tend to be getting closer to that each year.

No. You need miracle stuff. A cheats way of pretending to have explained something without explaining it at all. Your cop out, is God does things with magic. Little tricks to excuse your minor lack of explanation for trivial details such as... oh... where does everything come from? and how did life begin? You don't use magical God power to cheat your way through  explanation of very much at all do you?


Of course you don't believe that we are created so all you see is evolution when you look at life.

My beliefs don't cause me to see (or hear) things. delusional hallucinations are a creationist specialty. You've got the wrong guy. In my world the reasons precede the beliefs. I see  abundant evidence of evolution and I see good reason to believe that it is an inevitable fact of nature. The belief is a by product of evidence and reason. It isn't an active agent in the process of reaching conclusions. Beliefs are never causes only effects.


You also apparently 'believe' that against all odds 'life' organized itself.


See above re: standard well refuted creationist canard and wheres the update on refutations?


You know that nobody has evidence of such a thing


And you know this isn't the starting point of the real debate, and anybody with more than a passing interest in this debate, knows there are several rounds of back and forth to go before creationists run away from this lie with their tail between their legs. The only purpose of trying to start the charade at this point, is to make the evolutionist do all the leg work and play along with your pretense that you have not heard any further refutation.

The overall objective is to waste time with multiple back and fourths parries to constantly perpetuate the illusion of a lively debate in which creationist bul---hit is dignified as a valid viewpoint. It only looks impressive to naive scientifically illiterate folk, who don't know much about reasoning or the evidence.

You make the unbelievably ignorant, absurd, stupid and fallacious claim that there is no evidence supporting evolution at all, and no doubt, you expect me to begin enumerating evidences for evolution, which you would no doubt then proceed to summarily dismiss out of hand, on which ever irrational, irrelevant and fallacious grounds you can jump on. The objective for a creationist is not to be well reasoned or rational, since the potential converts they are trying to impress


but with a giant step of faith you believe it in any case.


Faith is a load of religious twaddle in my mind, but please Bulletfoot, do tell the nice religious people, how bad faith is for reaching valid factual conclusions, cos they can never hear that enough, especially from a bible thumping fundie like you.

Oh!! Where did you say you got God from again? Don't accuse me of suffering from your delusions thanks.

Either life was created or it created itself.


How did you reach that profound conclusion? Can you put it in a syllogism?

You think the one choice is obvious; I think the other is obvious. I've had enough evolution shoved down my throat to believe it but I don't.


Well that isn't a valid precursor to learning an understanding of anything is it? The fact that you even think that having an idea "shoved down your throat" should make it more believable, aught to tell us something about how your mind works. And here again you posit 'belief' as if it were goal in and of itself. So again I point out that understanding is the real objective.

Claiming something has been shoved down your throat, does not even suggest that you have understood it and nor does it make it any more or less likely to be true. In any case, the  theory of evolution is hardly the most likely candidate for the title of 'Belief most forced upon people' is it?  

You can imagine that I have insufficient intelligence if you like, but that does not make evolution any more believable.


Well no, of course not. If you lack sufficient intellect to comprehend evolution then that would make it less believable, for you at least, because without the ability to understand it, you would not be able to see that it is just an inevitable fact. The best way to dispel this suspicion (not mine) is to demonstrate that you do understand, by explaining what you understand about evolution and how you doubt its validity in some way by referring to the propagation of genes, or fossil hominids or the geological stratum etc...

Don't just regurgitate canard from the creationist rhetoric mill either, which always mentions genes or fossils for example, in such a way that does not demonstrate an understanding. Your ability to discuss evolution as an informed insider should be pivotal to smashing any potential rumor that you don't get it and that is why you don't see the sense it makes as a fact of nature. That opportunity is a standing invite, for you and any other creationist, but invariably, they are long on rhetoric and short on real results.


If I were trying to impress you with my brain power, I could just pretend to believe it...


You can pretend to believe it all you like, I will still see that you can not talk about it as somebody who understands it. And that will make you look like a faker for evolution instead of a faker for creation.

...and that way I would be considered to be more intelligent with far less effort.


By doing that you should be considered as an idiot, with nothing but cynical contempt for the intelligence of other people.

See. This is why you goons rub rational people up the wrong way. The fact that you can make a shallow pretense of belief is transparent either way. You treat people like idiots by believing they are stupid enough to buy your pretentious charade. Don't you realise how you insult peoples intelligence with this kind of talk? Your creationist pretense, is transparent, and so would be any attempt you make to forge an evolutionist pretense to belief. Your preoccupation with faking, is instructive though, it tells us something of your motives and how you think.

And again we see the importance is placed upon belief. I don't care what you believe, only why you believe it. belief is no surrogate for understanding. Get a clue.


In fact I bet your yardstick for measurable intelligence is the ability to imagine that evolution happened.


Why have one yardstick, there are a multitude of viable indicators, none of them perfect or complete but each providing some indication of intelligence.

In contrast to your "imagine that evolution happened", I would suggest perhaps understand how it works as an actual matter of fact. But then there are better scientific concepts to wrap your head around and test intellect. Try relativity for example.

Your ability to distinguish between disparate ideas, such as evolution and abiogenesis, could be another indicator. Or on a similar note try comprehending the difference between an argument for the fact of biological evolution and an argument against the existence of a supernatural creator.

One of my favorite indicators of intellect though, is the  brilliant inspiring minds which despite many years of ruthless indoctrination and brainwashing from the age they first began to speak, eventually break free from religion.  Despite being sheltered from reality and spoon fed mindless dogma; being blackmailed with hell and bribed with heaven and having been trained by adults who seem to own the world and know everything, still they break out.

These precious babes may accept every word with uncritical obedience, and yet despite that grievous abuse of trust, when child grows up and at some time, if that adult is capable of throwing the shackles of religious dogma, then I applaud the massive fiat of intellectual might.

Btw. Do you realize that this thread was originally about the need for abiogenesis to explain evolution, quite a specific issue, it was not a general rant on why creationists think evolution is wrong and creation is right. But of course, the irellivant tangents are all just so much dogging, weaving and creating diversions aren't they?



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 5:02 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I heard a talk by Steve Carlip not too long ago.  The theory of gravity is FAR more likely to see major revisions in the not too distant future than the theory of evolution.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:22 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis - revision of TOG - what were the reasons Prof Carlip give for this?  I can only speculate that physicists expect to see some interesting results from the Hadron Collider research.

Skipticus - I'm right with you.  Creationists can only sprout nonsense that they find on their own websites - like the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was different in the past than it is today.  That would be a remarkable finding.  I wonder why you don't find it in any scientific peer-reviewed journals.  I would think such a finding would be quite astonishing to the physics world.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:51 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Basically that different theories that used to be thought distinct are being found to be mathematically equivalent.   And the basic problem is a lack of specificity that allows predictions that could be falsified, or put another way, they are so general that they are useless.  The LHC is not the only game in town, observational sensitivity in other areas such as gravitational waves is getting to the point where breakthrough discoveries are possible.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:28 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis - so the sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors are getting to the point where they should be able to detect g-waves? I've heard of LIGO - Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory.  

LIGO

It sounds absolutely mind boggling that they can even concieve of doing such a thing.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:09 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The LIGO upgrade started last year, but I don't think it will be complete until 2014.

The Europeans have a plan to launch a space based detector with a baseline of 5 million kilometers, but it's been slipped to the 2015-2025 time frame.

LIGO Upgrade


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:54 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow!  Absolutely amazing.  I hope they succeed.  

Why bother detecting G-waves?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:47 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 01:36 AM on March 1, 2009
This contemptible behavior is EXACTLY what you have exhibited towards creationism throughout all of your posts.
It is classic "pot calling the kettle black" (colloquialism for wisp).


No its not. Creationism is a despicable anti-intellectual fundamentalist crackpot cult, full of lying vermin and deserves to be identified as the scourge of society it is. Proponents of creationism mount vulgar attacks on the perfectly respectable science of biological evolution. They lie, misquote and play at every form of dishonest underhanded tactic they can. They seek to infiltrate the education system and undermine the science curriculum. For those reasons I am not inventing smear but stating facts.

What contemptible behavior have I exhibited towards creationism huh? Dreaming up irrelevant, fallacious, strawmen perhaps? Well I criticise those things but I don't do them.  

As evidenced by your open contempt for anyone who believes in creation?


Look I couldn't give a rats arse, if you believed the moon was made of cheese and that the pyramids were alien UFO bunkers. Being deceitful, disingenuous and plotting to destroy a field of knowledge, because you fear that it contains or may learn secrets which undermine the security blanket of your fairytale dogma, well, thats a different cup of tea. My hostility towards the disgrace that is fundamentalist Christianity is very well justified. I am not hostile because of your loony beliefs, but rather the actions in society, your piers may present as advocates of these beliefs.

And telling them to go away?

Now heres a classic example of paraphrasing out of context. You are trying hard to make this sound like I said or intended it to mean 'go away and don't come back', when I was simply demanding that somebody go and get educated before commenting on the misgivings of evolution.

So you are not just a naive bleating follower then, you are actually a card carrying, sh-t digging slander merchant.

You presume to know that a creationist by nature can't know anything about evolution.


DO I!? S'pose it never occurred to you that I might want a reference to back up this bald arsed assertion. They do put quote facilities on this forum, or you can just copy pasta. Yet another lazy creationist tactic. Baseless unsupported accusation and innuendo.


And than you mock their beliefs


Well unfortunately fundamentalist creationist beliefs are themselves an affront too secular, science and humanistic beliefs. I am equally entitled to uphold my beliefs as sacred and emotionally dear to me. Simply believing what creationists do is in itself mockery of my beliefs and that is a constant, ubiquitous, prevailing contention, that maintains animosity as a feature of the shared intellectual landscape.

Fundamentalist Christians go out of their way to destroy and undermine scientific knowledge, which in my worldview is the  working product of mans finest accomplishment, the oracle of reason. Creationism in its crudest form, is a perpetual insult to reason and intellectual honesty. So don't complain to me, if by pointing out the absurdity of creationist ideas (in the defense of science, nature and reason) I am offending creationists, as if they (and yourself - if you wish), were the only ones offended.

And lets not forget that the topic of creationism didn't even have to come up in this thread. If it were a valid question about how abiogenesis relates to evolution by natural selection, then it could be discussed in the highest ivory towers of secular science, without furrowing a single brow. It isn't a creationist issue or anything that has to do with supernatural beliefs in any way whatsoever. It is creationists with the overt agenda to force their beliefs down other peoples throats, combined with the ignorant, stupid and irrepressable belief that 'if evolution is false then my sky pixie is true', that motivates this zealous imposition.

Creationists whine (constantly) that the big bad evolutionists mock them. Most of the mockery though, is valid criticism. The creationist beliefs themselves are an abomination and mockery to established, real, concrete, science and the factuality of nature. Fundamentalist creationist belief, is an abomination and an affront to what we honestly and rationally know about nature. Criticizing that abomination is what whiny sniveling creationists call mockery.

However, it is invariably creationists that are the ones who impose their twisted fairytale beliefs into the picture, they are the ones who must employ attention seeking behavior, to publicize their degenerate nonsense. They are the ones who must attack (and thats why they resort to baiting), otherwise their incoherent nonsense would just be left out of the discourse.

There is a game I have already mentioned, which you have ignored my comments about Timbrx. Is the deceitful ploy of attacking first (usually using deceit and subversion) and then pretending that the resulting defense is itself an offensive first strike. I find it amusing that even though I have pointed this out, you have not only ignored the point, but you have continued to do that very thing. Continually whining about being attacked when your little fundie friend started it, and I blew the whistle, is just typical creationist canard.  

It does your credibility no good, to not see this for what it is, and be honest that the issue started from the very first post, do you remember me pointing out where the creationist agenda to vilify evolution entered the discussion? Do you understand my reason for pointing this out?

Yes it's about that game isn't it? Creationists go looking for every opportunity to start a debate by assaulting science and then bleating at the top of their lungs, how offended and hurt their feelings are, when they get criticized. Every opportunity is used to interpret that criticism as personal and directed towards  creationist beliefs, as everybody knows we all have a right to our beliefs and that's the best place to put the hurt feelings card.

At the same time the creationist happily exploits the mind set of their rationalist adversary on two fronts:

Firstly, it is not rational to argue that X belief is false because it hurts my feelings. The rationalist is not concerned with the emotional pleading argument, as it is just not relevant. But for the creationist it is a useful tool because their motive, as I have explained, is to maintain an illusion of diligent discourse, in which they can pretend to be constructive, relevant, partisans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Whining however, about the nature of the discourse itself, and the very fact that criticism / counter criticism (and calling it mockery or ridicule), hurts the feelings of creationists, along with other diversionary ploys, serves to derail the debate and put the opponent off. It invites us all to participate in am emotional bickering session and that diverts us from the sober matter of facts of nature and reason, what is true and factual per se. I would gladly give up the right to complain about adhom and hurt feelings if creationists would agree to just shut the f-ck up about it. I mean really what does any of that sh-t prove huh?

The other front that creationists exploit their opponents on, is the fact that they do have an emotional disposition towards their worldview. The understandings of science are hard won, and only by the selfless attrition of less fruitful ideas that might be ones own pet conjecture or hopeful field of futuristic development. A fact is a fact, and an honest rational person can not let personal whim stand in the way of that. That is about as close as you will get to any kind of creed in rationalist thought.

Now. Despite the fact that I know my anger at the attack on science and the insults to my basic intellect that creationist argument provokes, is no rational justification for retaliation based on my emotional response; never the less, I still feel intense hostility and resentment at such insolent disrespect towards my worldview and towards the very enterprise that has given these tragic imbeciles, the entire providence of modern society, since the advent of agriculture or before. Reason is the only savior mankind ever had.

I have to censor my emotive responses, precisely because I am the one purporting to be putting forward a rational worldview, and if I go on an emotionally satisfying slanging match, I am all the more culpable because rationalists are not supposed to be become overwhelmed by emotions. It hardly seems fair to have to be more civil and reasonable because I have an investment in rational thought.

while demonstrating a willful lack of understanding of their beliefs and completely dismissing them as some sort of weakness or defect.


Try 'delusion' it fits much better. It also fits for Muslims and Jews, Bahia, Rosicrucians, Mormons, Hare Krishnahs and Hindus. All of these beliefs make the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Father Christmas look relatively plausible by comparison. What precisely is there to understand that would make them seem more plausible to a rational minded person?

Never mind that though, I will point out that you are not in any position to judge what understanding I have of these beliefs. Again you make an unsupported assertion and fail to point out where as you claim I can be seen "demonstrating a willful lack of understanding of their beliefs". If you can't be bothered making the effort to quote or give references for your peevish assertions, I will assume you are doing the old creationist bait and switch, or trying to bait me into  defending a position I never took or a claim I never made.

Try debating on the merits of the argument rather than the character of the arguer.


Don't give me debating advice sunshine. I have made loads of worthy points based on substance. You by contrast have not made any use of it, nor followed through. Your whole post (to which I am now responding) is nothing but a whiny, emotional, substance free, pouting session about the nasty evolutionist who criticizes, your beliefs. How many times will I have to point out that the OP was an unprovoked attack on evolution and my response is a well justified defense? The character in question is the perpetrator of a deliberate sham who's arguments have no merits, and this has all been pointed out. There is no character assassination if I am pointing out the disgraceful actions and their implications.

If I speak from the heart about what I feel about these kinds of people then you can do what you like, stick your neck out, pull your head in... whatever. I don't care. It's just a case of 'if the shoe fits'. If the guy wants to defend his character thats up to him, you should just but out, unless you can defend him with an actual point. Hmmmm?

So what if JSF16 what trying to bait you. If your explanation is strong enough it should stand up in spite of criticism.


So let's get this straight, I criticize your beliefs and you want to throw a pity party and condemn me for adhom but when somebody cooks up fallacious slander that is made of pure, solid, outright lies, then sleazily makes out to be an unbiased bystander with a question from curiosity, then I should toughen up and let my beliefs stand on their own merit.

If anybody needs to toughen up and let their ideas stand on their own merit and STFU about emotional whining and playing the hurt feelings card, it you creationists. Are you in some kind of hypocrisy contest with someone?

My 'explanation' stands up fine to the irrelevance and non existing issue bought up by the OP.  The counter issue which rebounded from the failed attempt at erecting a strawman
was the deceitful underhanded approach taken and again it seems, in response to this:

So what if JSF16 what trying to bait you.


I must remind you that the OP is an attack in disguise and my response is only a defense. And now you want to know what? Well this is a debate forum ya know? and the whole idea is to respond to apposing view points (apart form the opportunity for noting and reaching agreement and general social interaction) there exists the opportunity to falsify opposing views, expose fallacies and well... debate.

In this case though, the particular counter issue which arose with JSF16 trying to bait, it is more sinister than polite debate about facts, owing to it's particularly underhanded and deceitful nature. That in itself is a point more than worthy of  general discussion as it seems to be a pervasive pattern in creationist discourse. You look for the dishonorable dishonest way to  instigate debate with smoke and mirrors, strawmen and lies from the outset and expect nobody to say anything about it because why? Is it this?:

If your explanation is strong enough it should stand up in spite of criticism.


That isn't criticism that was presented it's deceit and underhanded tactics and I have spent a great deal of time exposing and elaborating them. It may not concern you when a deceitful underhanded ploy is being staged, to dishonorably undermine open, honest, reasonable discourse, but that only illustrates the moral fiber of the creationist mind doesn't it?

My explanations have nothing to 'stand up to', and that is not my concern since trashing the irrelevance of the strawman from the OP, in my first reply to it. Even if the supposed 'criticism', were perfectly valid (or at least honest), then why shouldn't I respond? "So what?' you arrogantly you ask. So what? yourself.

So what if I expose an underhanded weasel, making a strawman, to frame the validity of an entire field of science as being false, when he is not only completely wrong but lying to to feign curious interest in that rhetorical strawman and bait people. So what if I do that huh?  If his deceitful pretentious charade were made of anything of substance, it would also stand on it's own merit.  So what?

Well it has no merit. That's what. In particular the deceit and willful sabotage of rational debate, is disgraceful on the part of creationists. That's what. This dispicable behavior is worlds apart from valid criticism and rational discourse. It is lying and cheating and being dishonest. I was brought up to understand that this was wrong, and now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of stealing. It is just as dishonest and worthy of scorn. So that's what also.



(Edited by Skepticus 3/1/2009 at 07:06 AM).

(Edited by Skepticus 3/1/2009 at 08:28 AM).

(Edited by Skepticus 3/1/2009 at 08:46 AM).

(Edited by Skepticus 3/1/2009 at 08:48 AM).

(Edited by Skepticus 3/1/2009 at 08:52 AM).


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 06:51 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry I don't know why but this last post seem to be formating in a very long narrow shape. Perhaps posting this below it will help.

orion, thanks for the joy man.

This new research does sound exciting. I have always held out hope for the EPR incompleteness theorem, Will this research likely help with a GUT?


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 08:39 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantum entanglement, which is the heart of the EPR paradox has been demonstrated experimentally.  I don't think all of the ramifications of that have fallen out yet.

There is no question that GR as a theory of gravity is incomplete, and well as QM.  The breakthrough that gets to a GUT could just as well come from a tabletop experiment as the LHR.  Pretty cool.

Without doubt, a new Theory of Gravity in on the horizon.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:18 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no question that GR as a theory of gravity is incomplete, and well as QM.  The breakthrough that gets to a GUT could just as well come from a tabletop experiment as the LHR.  Pretty cool.

Without doubt, a new Theory of Gravity in on the horizon.


I just got the most serious goose bumps. Mind you, Star Man by David Bowie is playing in the background.  Imagine that, living through a paradigm shift that awesome. Who will write the popular science, layman's translation, of what is going on I wonder?



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 11:48 AM on March 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To tell you the truth, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity make my head swim.  It certainly is hard for the layman, such as myself, to understand.  But the research going on in physics today is very, very exciting.

Does anyone know of a good general book on the subject of GR and QM?  Written fo the layman, of course.  I'm not a physicist, but I certainly enjoy reading such stuff if its not too far over my head.

I think TOE is also going through an exciting period today too.  Natural Selection may be a major force behind evolution, but biologists  think there are other factors involved that we are finding out about, such as phenotype plasticity, that influence evolution.

Exciting times!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:12 PM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from orion at 04:12 AM on March 2, 2009

Does anyone know of a good general book on the subject of GR and QM?  Written fo the layman, of course.  I'm not a physicist, but I certainly enjoy reading such stuff if its not too far over my head.


Well... it is going to be a little dated now, but I  thoroughly endorse Heinz Pagels  The Cosmic Code.  It explains relativity well and there is this chapter called a Quntum Mechanical Fairy Tale. Here, he tells a story wherein you are traveling with a group and it's a bit like an adventure game scenario. You get to a village where there are several different shops and in each of them is sold, a different quantum reality, Many worlds, non-locality and so on.  Your party visits each shop and the sales people sell you on the benefit and there are hecklers and so on. I really enjoyed that book.

It also delved well into thermodynamics and explained the second law as a statistical concept, first by visualizing molecules of gas, in two chambers, linked by a pipe with a valve. one chamber is pumped up to a couple of atmospheres of pressure for eg, while the other remains at ambient. The valve is released and as you would expect the chambers reach equilibrium. But why? Pressure is just the averaging of all those molecule impacts  If molecules are just bouncing around randomly, one molecule may move from one chamber to the next, but it should be just as likely for it to then do the opposite. Why equilibrium then?

We would tend to think of all that gas rushing into the low pressure side under classical Newtonian force. Pagels then switches to an analogy devised by Erinsferhst, using two dogs, with an unequal number of fleas say 5 vs 10. If we put 15 numbered cards into a hat, and draw them randomly. The fleas are also numbered so that, if a fleas number is drawn, it must jump from dog it is on to the other. Like the gas chambers there is just as much chance over time, of any one individual jumping one way as the other.

Why should the number of fleas on each dog, tend to reach an equilibrium? Easy, it's just plain probability. While there are more fleas on dog A, there are more chances of drawing a number which corresponds to one of the fleas on dog A. When dog B has more, it's visa versa. While that may seem obvious, what is less obvious, is that the second law of thermodynamics, is not ruled by classical determinism but rather probability.

Pagels does a brilliant job of explaining time reversal invariance as an emergent property of scale, by having you mentally zoom in then out on a wisp of smoke, from the macro scale to the microscopic and back. You notice randomness at the smallest scale, but you see the arrow of time at the largest.

I honestly got so much value out of this book, but I struggled with the explanation of Bells Inequality, and sadly I could never learn to perceive spooky action at a distance. Perhaps you will fair better orion.

Cheers


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 2:47 PM on March 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks skepticus, I'll look into it.  Sounds like a very interesting book.

I recently read Timothy Ferris 'Coming of Age in the Milky Way', in which he did an excellent job surveying the history of science.  He did touch a bit on evolution, relativity, QM, and the Big Bang.  But he also had interesting tidbits to say about the great minds through the ages - from Plato and Socrates through Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton through Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, Heinsberg, etc.  It too was a little dated (1989, I think), but it was a wonderful book.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:51 PM on March 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skepticus
Abiogensis may have been a historical fact, and even without our having an understanding of it, it would still lead to the existing mechanism we now observe and do understand. So I say again, that it (abiogenesis as a natural mechanism) doesn't need for us to know about it, or understand it, for it to exist. What has this go to do with God?
That you can say the same thing about God, and you don't seem to believe in God.

May be a fact... Or maybe not... Well, that has to be correct... Hum..

Then what you're saying is that if abiogenesis is a fact, then it would lead to what we see and understand today, and if it's not, at least we're left with understanding the 'since'?

If so, i agree. We have a good understanding of the 'since' (and our understanding of the prior state is growing too).

Goddidit however, does not even require genes let alone an intimate fit with the genetic mechanism.
Indeed. Creationism was their premise, and everything they see is made fit into it, or discarded.

They ask "Why don't we find a crocoduck?"
So if we don't, somehow that's evidence for a creating God.
If we did find it, i would call that evidence for a creating God (and so would them).

So when opposite pieces of (virtual) evidence can be used to support the same thing, it looks like that thing doesn't actually deal with the evidence.

A world with such a capricious magical genie as God, doesn't require any explanation for how information about phenotypes are passed from one generation to another. For all creationists could care, they might get there by catching the bus.
Haha! It's funny because it's true!

We might suppose that God could have provided some hint's that demonstrated the he himself had a deeper understanding of genetics and could write an account that would at least in hindsight, seem more plausible in view of any modern discovery.
I've been told that some creationist claimed that the Bible said something about double helix DNA, but i have not been shown the passage (or the creationist).

Imagine the creationist reception of Natural selection, had the bible, happened to have mentioned something like "...and beholdeth the markers of tidings within. [referring to genes] Each shall ye posseth unto thee, that like shall beget like and from thy loins shall spring forth the like of thy mother and the like of thy father".
Haha! Yeah!
OK, I don't do old English well,
It's funny because it's true!
but imaging a detailed section that unmistakably referred to genes.
I would expect nothing less from an all knowing God.

If i was Him i would call the Moon "another world" instead of "a lesser light" (specially since the Moon is no light).

If such a book was found, i think i would consider converting.

Now THAT's what God could have done to save my soul, instead of sending a nice jewish guy to die.

Am i being unreasonable, God?

That of course invokes a regress that is bounded only by some ultimate cause of all causes. When you think that way you must know everything before you can say you understand anything.
I've meditated long about this subject (with a little help from one of Einstein's gedanken experiments used to contradict Heisemberg's Principle of Uncertainty).

It might be the strict truth.
But even if it was, we humans cannot live up to that truth in any way, so we should discard it for practical purposes.

What I find annoying, is that creationists don't ever forward objections which are based on understanding. They cant possibly be using proper reasoning skills,
Well that's just not true.

I've been asked some good questions by creationists. It's just that i can't remember any of them now. xD
But i have bad memory.

they cant possibly be understanding parsimony and they certainly can not be understanding the theoretical idea they are criticizing nor the mountains of incontrovertible evidence that supports it.
Yeah... I try to be polite, but if you don't believe in Evolution, i first think that you haven't been exposed to some facts... And if you have, and still don't believe it... Well i get the feeling that something in your process of reasoning is malfunctioning.

But i try to be humble, and think that it might happen to me as well (even now).

The idea that evolution by natural selection, depends upon abiogenesis is drop dead, bald assed, straw man if there ever was one.
I'm with you all the way on this one.

Damn, i hate straw man! Lester10 and gluteous use it too much. It gets so tiresome...

Also probabilistic Texas sharpshooter fallacies...

And arguments ad hominem, and ipse dixit...

At least they don't come here saying that Darwin recanted.

The (non)-thinking process is so alien to objective rationalism, that it is not possible to have a meaningful discourse and convince a creationist that some scientific idea is a fact of reality.
You can atract more flies with honey than... Than...
Damn, i'm terrible at English sayings. Well, you get it.
They belong to a mind set that does not seek understanding. The question which started this thread would not have been a necessary with a very very basic understanding of science.
Ok, but they're right when they say that you don't have faith (about it, at least), so you don't understand it.

We have built a 'faith' in Evolution (guided by evidence and understanding, so can hardly be called 'faith', but bear with me).

If you found a crocoduck, you (and i) would immediately start looking for the trick. It cannot be! Right? Just can't!!

Wee keep looking for some mechanism, some sewing lines, SOMETHING!

I think that's pretty much how they feel, except that they also feel like they don't have access to the crocoduck.

Imagine what WE would say if THEY found the crocoduck, and refused to show it to us, ignorant godless unbelievers.

I know that's not what we do to them, but they feel like it anyway. Just stating the facts.

timbrx
Yea, it's not. The "effect" of origin is the physical reality. I know it exists, so why would I question it?
Just semantics, then.  

You're not questioning the factuality of the effect, but the effectivity of the fact. You say it is a fact, but not the effect to some evolutionary cause...

So there's nothing left here but to move on.

I thought the question was "How do you think life began?"
Not so. It was: "how does evolution say first life arose?". That's why i answered "It doesn't."

Care to cite an example? Examples are good.
Sure. A friend if mine was diagnosed with cancer today. The doctors will probably give him chemo and radiation and along with surgery. Our whole church will be praying for him. (application based on the presupposition that God created us, cares about us, and can guide the doctors, influence the cancer and most importantly give him peace about the situation. )

It doesn't look like a difference, but an addition. Because you would care about, and encourage (i hope) the treatment, while doctors wouldn't care about (i hope) if you prayed or not.

I don't know if i made my point...

I also believe that if prayers were any good at influencing survival rates they would have become another evolutionary trait (because of the differential survival rate). And if fractions of a prayer were any good, then even animals would have evolved prayer.

The thing I can't figure out is why skepticus is so hostile. If you are so sure that your interpretations are founded on the right kind of thinking than shouldn't you be trying to educate instead of criticize?
I agree. What are you trying to do, Skepticus?
What's your goal?

Skepticus
You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God.
There is no good evidence for the existence of the color red either (red things don't count).

That is very true in and of itself. But then I notice that there are Muslims and Christians and Jews and Bahias and Moonies and... on it goes. I notice that all of these people seem to get their mutually inconsistent beliefs in more or less the same manner.
Yeah... It would be nice if they joined and made a new religion, combining the good parts of all of them, adding some tolerance, and forgetting about historical facts.

There are many devoted Christians who recognize evolution as an undeniable fact of the natural world.
Some crhistians wouldn't call those christians 'christians'. But you're right.

People do not ask this kind of question out of honest personal curiosity. And then to demonstrate that my suspicion of a religious pretense are accurate we read this:
Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began
Well, that's obvious. We all knew it when he posted the question. I played along so he could make his point, and then i could refute it.

We do it too. I do, at least.

But yeah, sometimes they get mad because of that simple debating tool.

Apart from the obvious non-sequitur does this sound like honest curiosity, or a belligerent, self righteous, cocky proclamation?
What about your very question? Or my last one? Or my last one? Or my last one?

Again, it is precisely the kind of proclamation that is made by know nothing creationists,
That sounds beligerant.
who  are positively motivated to denigrate evolution precisely because they have been indoctrinated to think, if evolution is false then Goddidit.
Yeah, that's one of their conceptions that i fight against.
I am inclined to call a spade a spade and I saw this religious pretext coming a mile away.
I bet you're special person, but not because of having seen that.

Now, having said that. There is a BIG difference between having the humility to ask honest questions about evolution, from the point of view of somebody (religious or otherwise) who honestly wants to understand evolution, and somebody who comes forth with a smartarse question, pretending to be curious rather than smug and self assured,
I'm guilty as charged.
especially if that question comes with a petulant, almost hostile demand not to be attacked.
I'm off the hook with this one. When i do that, i'm prepared for anything (virtually).

Frankly, I reserve the right to behold with contempt, anybody who doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in understanding an idea, which they are vigilantly attempting to discredit.
You certainly have that right (actually i don't believe in rights). And i never contradict myself.

Would you say that you're interested in understanding every branch of creationism before you start attacking them?

I'd say i am, but i'm not quite sure.

It is one thing to understand an idea and criticize it intellectually from the inside, and another to dream up irrelevant, fallacious, strawmen that seek to discredit it, without any understanding of the subject whatsoever.
Yeah, that sounds like an objective way to measure dishonesty: strawmen.

Probably the best thing to do with them is saying "Brother creationist, that's a strawman. Let us burn it together! LIFE IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS!".
They tend to put a somber disposition on, and skip the subject.

In fact they usually don't even have the faintest grasp of proper reasoning skills either,
I believe many creationists have them, but their faith weighs more.
Yet the very obscure and peripheral subject of abiogenesis, they can feign an interest in?
gluteous can. And it's annoying.

I don't want to seem stubborn, and perhaps I shouldn't yell my point,
Cool.
but I do get so angry at the disingenuous ploys, when I am just so comfortable in my own skin that I am only trying to be honest with myself and only serving the truth, and these abhorrent little wretches come along,
That sounds worse than yelling. Closer to reportable. I won't report it, and i hope nobody does, but you're still out of order.

Does that truth you're serving, in turn, serve anyone?

If that truth doesn't serve people, are you serving it out of whim?

If it does serve people, is it reasonable for you to insult people?

The same goes with Science.

trying to kick sand into the face of reason. It also rubs a fair amount of salt into my wounds, when they try to pretend that they are morally superior, which they do by subtle inference (never by direct claim)...
Here's what i do: hate christianism, love the christian.

They do feel morally superior (even when they don't follow the biblical precepts). When they criticize my having tried LSD and marijuana, and swinging, i criticize their throwing garbage in the streets (little papers, candy wrappings, cigarette ends and the sort), eating animals, not recycling, lying, throwing batteries to the garbage, EATING PORK, NOT COVERING THEIR HEADS IN THE OPEN, PRAYING IN PUBLIC...

-Jesus marked the end of the old law.
-He didn't. But if that was the case, why do you care about the ten commandments?
-Because he revalidated them. What to you mean he didn't?
-Jesus omitted half of the commandments and invented a new one. And, about the old law, he said that, till Heavens and Earth passed away, not a iota, not a dot would pass the law until all is accomplished. And that you shouldn't relax in the least of those commandments.
-I don't remember that...
-How convenient.
-Where is it?
-Mathew 5:18/19.

If you understood how evolution by natural selection works you would understand how irrelevant the question about abiogenesis is. There is no need for the question in any event.
Here's an event you have left out of the equation: If you don't understood how evolution by natural selection works.

Why in any event are we 'evolutionists' expected to spoon feed religious people,
I like your quotes. I hate that word...
by attempting to exhaustively type out an explanation for how evolution actually does work, whenever
somebody comes along with an appalling misconception?
Well, it's up to you.

I do.

Because that's what i would like them to do (and sometimes they patiently do) when i go (or come) along with what they think is an appalling misconception.

But ignoring gluteous is very tempting.

Then you misunderstand. You would have to go nearly impossible lengths to find anybody who cares more passionately about freedom of information and knowledge.
I meant that you seem to say that those who have a knowledge can speak, and those who don't, can't.

I believe you and agree with you about the rest of your statements. I too have taught myself most of the things i know about (including English, which good or bad serves my communication and aids my learning).

I recomend Wikia Search Because it is collaborative and not biased to corporate schmoozing.
Yeah. It's very cool (at least conceptually). You can add it to your Firefox search frame here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9731

When you have legitimate questions then I will personally be at the beckon call of anybody willing to learn. But generally forums such as this and those at sites which explain evolution, welcome people who have sincere honest questions.
[color=teal]Sometimes i feel like contradicting creationists. Because i know they're wrong. So i feel that it gives me the right.
So i think of a cocky question, and sometimes check answersingenesis.org first. I find the relevant article, and the text is so tediously long!
I feel confident that i could refute any part of it (like most of us could), but i don't want to go through the trouble of reading it, because nobody will answer me when i utter my retorts.

I think creationists and us are not so different in some aspects.


Lester10
The modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution is as rock solid, as the relativistic formulation of gravity.
This is a most common blunder.
Let's see you back this up.
You see gravity can be observed and repeated using the scientific method.
More like continuous, but ok...
Evolution on the other hand is never observed, it is pretty much entirely imaginary.
Ah, Lester, Lester.

Saying 'pretty much entirely' is pretty much like saying 'pretty much infinite'.

What are you asking of me? To post all the evidence for evolution?

Just google it. Fossils, taxonomi, genes, that kind of stuff.

It's not that we're actually too stupid to imagine it, it's that we don't happen to be as believing as you faithful evolutionists are.
When will you explain our faith to us?

What is faith, and what makes you say we're faithful?

We like to see evidence for scientific claims,
Like this one? "Each land animals species descend from one male and one female that lived 4k years ago."
you all extrapolate merrily on your minor observations
Like things evolving?
and expect everyone 'with a brain' to follow merrily along like the pied piper and the rats - remember that one?
No.

You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God.
Except for what has been created.
How did you get to the conclusion that anything was created?
Of course you don't believe that we are created so all you see is evolution when you look at life.
Of course (but not because of that).

But you shouldn't say 'of course'. If there were other available valid theories that would weaken the certainty of the TOE. And it SHOULD happen if the TOE wasn't certain.

By the way, i think i speak for all of us when i say that we don't see because we believe. More like the other way around. Our beliefs are based upon observation and understanding.

You also apparently 'believe' that against all odds 'life' organized itself.
No.

Would you like to learn about it?

You know that nobody has evidence of such a thing
Yes, we do.
but with a giant step of faith you believe it in any case.
No, we don't.

Either life was created or it created itself.
What about a stone, a color, a number, a wave, a cloud, God...?
You think the one choice is obvious;
Not to me. Your use of the word 'created' is pretty confusing.

If a rock was created, life was created.
If a rock was formed by a natural process, life was formed by a natural process.
If a rock created itself... I want to see that rock.

I think the other is obvious.
Yeah, stick to what you think. Mind reading is not your forte.

I've had enough evolution shoved down my throat to believe it but I don't.
Let me shove some more: the physical appearance and genetic proximity of dogs, wolves, coyotes and foxes are evidence of Evolution.
Would you like me to explain why, or is it self explanatory?
You can imagine that I have insufficient intelligence if you like,
Thanks.
but that does not make evolution any more believable.
Nor any less.
If I were trying to impress you with my brain power, I could just pretend to believe it and that way I would be considered to be more intelligent with far less effort.
Hum... Yes, i guess... If you didn't try to talk about it...
In fact I bet your yardstick for measurable intelligence is the ability to imagine that evolution happened.
I'll quote Richard Dawkins, from The Selfish Gene:
Why are people?

Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.

If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?'

Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them.
His name was Charles Darwin.
To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth, but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist.


Skepticus
timbrx
Yea, it's not. The "effect" of origin is the physical reality. I know it exists, so why would I question it?
For starters who is talking about YOU? Only you.
That's true. I didn't think that "the question" meant "your question", timbrx.

Skepticus
Pure ignorant slop and facile Bu---it.
We're grown ups here.

Besides, those dashes don't make the word any more or less insulting. Those dashes are clear bullshit.



timbrx
"pot calling the kettle black" (colloquialism for wisp).
Thanks. I guessed its meaning. ^_^

Skeptikus
So, you can't perhaps imaging the universe ultimately having it's own inbuilt logical explanation for everything
Man, that's deep...

I know because i reached that conclusion after deep meditation.

A self explanatory universe, where every part is linked to every other part.

Have you come across that concept somewhere?


One of my favorite indicators of intellect though, is the  brilliant inspiring minds which despite many years of ruthless indoctrination and brainwashing from the age they first began to speak, eventually break free from religion.  Despite being sheltered from reality and spoon fed mindless dogma; being blackmailed with hell and bribed with heaven and having been trained by adults who seem to own the world and know everything, still they break out.
That's really touching.

I have proudly helped people reach that point.
They fare not-so-well for a while after that, but then they can start something new and self made.


(Edited by wisp 3/1/2009 at 5:24 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:59 PM on March 1, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 07:59 AM on March 2, 2009 :
[color=teal]
Skepticus
Abiogensis may have been a historical fact, and even without our having an understanding of it, it would still lead to the existing mechanism we now observe and do understand. So I say again, that it (abiogenesis as a natural mechanism) doesn't need for us to know about it, or understand it, for it to exist. What has this go to do with God?
That you can say the same thing about God, and you don't seem to believe in God.

May be a fact... Or maybe not... Well, that has to be correct... Hum..

Then what you're saying is that if abiogenesis is a fact, then it would lead to what we see and understand today, and if it's not, at least we're left with understanding the 'since'?


Yes yes yes... and either way the Christian God doesn't come into it. Nor does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That isn't because the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the one and only true God either.

If so, i agree. We have a good understanding of the 'since' (and our understanding of the prior state is growing too).


Yes they are two very interesting and natural areas of scientific research. I have also realised on more careful reflection, that there is a more fundamental reason for not expecting biological evolution to depend on abiogenesis. That is because abiogenesis is not the cause of evolution, even if it is the cause of the primordial archetype of life. The connection I have realised is a non-sequitur anyway. The cause of evolution is the intrinsic property of life to reproduce (albeit imperfectly) and translate stored (genetic) information about approximately successful ancestral phenotypes into the new phenotype.

Earlier replicators don't cause life to have these properties, but most certainly would be required to have those properties themselves. There is nothing in nature which prevents a system with these properties from arising. Evolution is a product of a set of conditions which once happenstance has provided, then it becomes inevitable.  I would be more inclined to wonder how many replicator (pre-dna) lines arose and went extinct, before the one which led to dna based life.

So the origin of life and the origin of evolution are two different concepts even though they bound together by physical circumstance. Evolution can only act upon something that may be defined as living (let's momentarily define that as the power to reproduce), but a system which contains individuals which can reproduce, is no guarantee of any accumulated adaption.

If a reproducing colony of individuals (I wont call them organisms yet) can arise even once, then it can arise more than once. Even if individuals in a reproductive colony can't compete and adapt then the colonies themselves may. If these crude replicators are nothing more than molecular systems in repeating patterns of chemical reactions, there will be competition for the precursor chemicals (like food) that may be used (broken down into lower energy states) to fund energy for reproducing the strain.

Different strains keep arising and one day a strain which uses X fuel meets a replicator which discards X. Or one replicator finds that it can act as a catalytic agent for another (perhaps) discarding a catalytic enzyme. Now symbiotic behavior exists, and so on. More complex chemical reactions give rise to more complex behavior and more complex replicators.

For a system to arise which can be said to evolve we only need some method for adaption to take place. The replicators will already have selection pressure, as attrition will inevitably result from poorly adapted varieties. The only other requirement for simple adaption is some way to store non-random information. A molecule has this capacity, because it remembers (in a sense) it's own configuration, its three dimensional structure that arises from the positions of the bonds and the valency of it's atoms. That in turn translates to how it behaves and interacts with the environment. In adaptive terms, this configuration is information about probable reproductive value.

Interesting complex reactions will occur as replicators by chance meet chemicals and other replicators not previously encountered. The capacity to evolve is intrinsic to the system, the whole ecosystem and this is pure happenstance, because new reactions or situation that happen to be found by a replicator that are beneficial to its reproduction, will serve to give that replicator an edge.

Groups of molecules can store more complex information about their own relative success when found in each others company. It is inevitable that molecules will tend to form symbiotic relationships, and 'remember' that strategy, because it results in proliferation of those molecules. So there is a metric for success in the environment and a method of storing information about potential success, in the configurations of molecular chemistry. It would seem that life is a foregone conclusion.

The onus is on creationists to explain precisely what makes abiogenesis impossible. Unless God instructed chemistry (in true Abrahamic style), not to play with itself.

I know creationists will be prone to pointing out that this scenario is my own speculation and even accuse it of being science fiction etc etc... because they don't want to admit what is possible. That line of criticism is actually itself more speculative because doesn't account for probability. How probable is the scenario, is the question? (god doesn't enter into that equation thank you). Notice that speculative does not equal improbable. You can speculate on something very likely indeed, the sun will shine upon my part of the world tomorrow.

You'll note that I didn't talk about specific chemicals, events or phenomenon in the environment. That's because it doesn't matter what the specifics are, to understand that the principals involved, if I am correct are inevitable. By the same token, the fact that science has not yet pinpointed particular chemical relationships and trace the complete history of replicators back to the first replicator, does not mean that the process is even improbable, let alone impossible / not true / sci-fi fantasy etc.

If a person is adopted and doesn't know who their biological parents are, it doesn't follow that they must have been made in a laboratory Frankenstein style. The safe bet, is that the person had biological parents. Likewise, Dna based life undoubtedly had natural, biological ancestral origins . Why? Because it has the mechanisms and obeys the principles, that not only make this possible but that make it inevitable. Adaption can not be logically removed from the picture and the Frankenstein God can not be logically inserted.

Now, back to my original point. Whatever was the ancestor to Dna based life might be, it may rightly be called the cause or origin of existing life, but it isn't the cause or origin of evolution. My parents didn't cause Mendelian genetics, they sort of caused me (oops), but they didn't cause, the principals  which were cooped in my conception. Likewise, the existence of a hypothetical (undiscovered) ancestral replicator is not going to make evolution any more secure, because that replicator is not the cause of evolution, it could only be just another result of evolution.

The cause of evolution in the simplest terms is adaption. The storage of information about ancestral success, when used in the phenotype of modified reproductive entities and the relative population / mortality of these modified entities.  

It is the principal of reproduction that is the ultimate cause of life, but if you want life to mean more than simple reproductive populations, you have to invoke adaption. While reproduction can exist independently from adaption, adaption can't exist independent of reproduction. In social insects with worker castes we see this inability for the worker to adapt selfish benefits, from the workers own viewpoint.

The worker bee is well adapted only to serve the interests if the whole colony, because she is not (usually) a reproductive member. Her genes will not see the light of day in future generations, so she may develop traits that serve no adaptive advantage from the individual or the worker castes point of view. When she stings for instance, her insides are partly torn out and her heart is co-opted to pulsate the poison sack and corkscrew the barb into the victim deeper, so she dies in service of the colony.

The processes of replication and information storage, are just inevitable natural processes that really must accumulate complexity with time. Replication of non-organic and organic molecules is a plain fact. Storage of information about relative reproductive success, is inevitable and the rest is history. Adaption must arise, and then it is only an arbitrary, semantic quibble, when you choose to point to something and say 'Now thats what I call life'. Complexity itself is inevitable, because thats what adaption does.

Life doesn't really have a singular cause then, it is a process which is comprised of several different principals, but it is a process which is inevitable under certain, (not very demanding / or improbable) circumstances.

  • Reproduction

  • Information storage (genetics)

  • Variation (mutaton)

  • Mendelian Inheritance

  • adaptive selection

  • relative mortality.



Those processes exist in the here and now, and are seen to be functional and highly non arbitrary processes. Mechanisms to account for those processes exist and are obliged by inevitable causality, to facilitate these processes. sexual reproduction, Mendelian inheritance and natural selection, happen under the circumstances that they do, because they must.

The cause of evolution is not the historical predecessor to Dna based life, it is the ongoing processes that facilitate adaption, The cause of evolution then is in the here and now. The cause of evolution exits contemporaneously with life. That is actually a huge problem for Goddidits, the cause of evolution is directly observable. Genes, variation and relative mortality, even speciation events.

Goddidits can't even explain why we have genes. It's as if our wrists had a perfectly functional wrist watch built right in and although it was fully capable of telling time accurately, and appeared to work in an identical manner to any normal wristwatch, they still insist that doesn't tell time. If you insist that you can actually tell time with it, they insist that this is only temporary local coordination of events. You can only time things to coincide with the position of the hands of the device. It only happens at the instant of coordination, so no large scale time keeping can be observed.

But but... Wait!! you protest, I can measure the time and coordinate events at will, it works every time I test it. 'Oh yeah?' scoffs the Goddidit, what about all the times in between? Nobody has ever observed a transitional time.  

Sorry guys. I went to start responding to wisp, and I ended up starting to write a book. So I'll snip this here, and get to wispy's post in a separate reply.

Cheers


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 08:19 AM on March 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

have also realized on more careful reflection, that there is a more fundamental reason for not expecting biological evolution to depend on abiogenesis. That is because abiogenesis is not the cause of evolution,
What an excellent observation.

Imperfect self-replication, energy input and differential survival rates are the three causes of any kind of evolution.

You wrote 6...

Let's see... i fused "reproduction", "information" storage" and "variation" to "imperfect self-replication"; i fused "adaptative selection" and "relative mortality" to "differential survival rate"; i left "mendelian inheritance" out and added "energy input". What do you think?

In the case of the memes, i think the fuel is us. Our brains.

even if it is the cause of the primordial archetype of life.
Exactly!

"Because of abiogenesis" isn't the answer to "Why does life evolve?".

So, JSF16, that's the rebuttal of your statement that the Theory of Evolution lacked a cornerstone.

Do you agree that it's a good rebuttal?

The cause of evolution is the intrinsic property of life to reproduce (albeit imperfectly) and translate stored (genetic) information about approximately successful ancestral phenotypes into the new phenotype.
AND differential survival rates, AND energy input. Am i right?

Evolution is a product of a set of conditions which once happenstance has provided, then it becomes inevitable.
Indeed. That's what creationist miss when they argue that the self-replicating chemicals that resulted from science labs are due to human intelligent settings.

Damn it, it's just a flask!!
Use your God given imagination, and compare a stupid flask with the whole Earth, and billions of years!!

I would be more inclined to wonder how many replicator (pre-dna) lines arose and went extinct, before the one which led to dna based life.
Exactly. It could have happened lots of times.

Replicators
Metiorite death
Other replicators
Volcano death
More replicators
Environmental death
Definite excellent ultimate replicators
Starvation death

Lots of things could go wrong, and must have gone wrong lots of times. But things settled down a little.

One interesting thing about self-replicators and evolution is that evolution happens in spite of self-replicators, in a way.

If we're allowed to imbue them with human traits, self-replicators don't want to evolve!!

Evolution, to them, means death. They "want" to replicate themselves faithfully. They don't want to produce another self replicator that's better than themselves, and ends up killing them.

So evolution is paradoxical in a way.

Could that give creationists something to work with?

I think it would be almost nice to give them more intelligent material to debate with, so our rebuttals can be more elaborate and elegant than "You're calculating wrong!", or "That's not random!", or "Micro and macro are the same!", or "A scientific theory is not a hypothesis!".

Creationists ask why abiogenesis doesn't happen again, which seems like a good question, when you think that things have already settled down, and there are lots of organic matter around.

But the truth is that the Earth is already taken. New life can't compete with old life for food. Actually, new life would most likely seem quite yummy for old life.

But sometime we'll have access to lots of planets, and will be able to do huge scale experiments, like dropping a couple of self replicators and a humongous amount of soup, and see what happens.
The future will be fun.

Anyway, new life can only (i think) arise in an unconquered space.

That's what the memes did.

They can arise, and stay for centuries, providing no advantage to their host. They can be symbiotic, but also parasitic.

There have been memes that killed their human hosts. Those can only reproduce if the host infects several other hosts before dying.

Memes seem to be alive in every sense i can think of.

So the origin of life and the origin of evolution are two different concepts even though they bound together by physical circumstance.
Sometimes you seem to have access to the exact words to express something.

Like i always say, it's the Theory of Evolution. Even when it's biological evolution, it's not the Theory of Life.

The only other requirement for simple adaption is some way to store non-random information.
What would "random information" be?
It is inevitable that molecules will tend to form symbiotic relationships, and 'remember' that strategy, because it results in proliferation of those molecules.
Yeah. In a way we're not even a colony of cells, but a bunch of symbiotic viruses that long ago learned how to collaborate and make bodies as vessels to sail through life (vessels that would protect and multiply them).

The worker bee is well adapted only to serve the interests if the whole colony, because she is not (usually) a reproductive member. Her genes will not see the light of day in future generations, so she may develop traits that serve no adaptive advantage from the individual or the worker castes point of view.
Her genes are present in the queen. So she's serving her genes just like any other creature.

You could say that the queen is exploiting the workers, but you can also say that the workers are farming the queen to multiply their own genes.

The colony behaves like an individual (like our cells are at the service of our sperms and eggs).

In ant colonies the drone has half the number of chromosomes that a female has.

That's because when a queen wants to make a drone, she uses an unfertilized egg.

So the sisters in a colony whose queen has mated with only one drone share 3/4 of the genes instead of 1/2, and so are closer relatives between themselves than to the queen.

So the queen wants to make females and drones in a 50-50 proportion (evolutionary stable strategy), but the workers want her to make more females.

Nothing is ever for the good of the individual, but for the good of its genes. Genes are all that matters to genes. The hell with individuals.

But but... Wait!! you protest, I can measure the time and coordinate events at will, it works every time I test it. 'Oh yeah?' scoffs the Goddidit, what about all the times in between? Nobody has ever observed a transitional time.
Haha! Yeah!

You give them two species in the same evolutionary line, and they complaint about the gap. You find the exact middle species, and they go "Now you have TWO gaps. You're losing ground!". Haha!

Good post, man. Keep it up, and try not to insult our precious creationist, for we have too few of them in this forum.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:10 PM on March 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The onus is on creationists to explain precisely what makes abiogenesis impossible.


No oxygen, no ozone, no life.

Oxygen - molecules break down in presence of oxygen so no life.

If amino acids could even hypothetically join together in primordial soup, hydrolysis would cause breakdown of peptide bonds - so no life.
In any case right and left handed amino acids equates to death so - no life.
The problem with the evolutionists (one of many ) is that they never ask whether abiogenesis occurred, they just ask 'by which pathway did abiogenesis occur?' assuming the answer before the question - all based on philisophical necessity.

Actually to get back to the original question, the onus is on the evolutionist to show that abiogenesis is remotely possible instead of assuming and running with the invisible ball.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:53 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No oxygen, no ozone, no life.
What? Are you saying that you can have no life without oxygen?

Oxygen - molecules break down in presence of oxygen so no life.
What? Are you saying that you can have no life with oxygen?

In any case right and left handed amino acids equates to death so - no life.
Are you dead?

Did your god use some other thing for life than right and left handed amino acids? ^o)

The problem with the evolutionists (one of many ) is that they never ask whether abiogenesis occurred,
Yeah, because that's no concern of the TOE.
they just ask 'by which pathway did abiogenesis occur?' assuming the answer before the question
It's as good assumption as "If i open my faucet water will come out, instead of melted chocolate."

They could have a hidden camera waiting to catch my expression when i open the faucet and chocolate comes out (proving me wrong), but that's unlikely.

all based on philisophical necessity.
Expand this point, please. What you mean is not clear.

Actually to get back to the original question, the onus is on the evolutionist to show that abiogenesis is remotely possible instead of assuming and running with the invisible ball.
Yeah, alright.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Anything else?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:26 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester:The problem with the evolutionists (one of many ) is that they never ask whether abiogenesis occurred, they just ask 'by which pathway did abiogenesis occur?' assuming the answer before the question - all based on philisophical necessity.

Actually to get back to the original question, the onus is on the evolutionist to show that abiogenesis is remotely possible instead of assuming and running with the invisible ball.


You are totally wrong.   The validity of TOE DOES NOT require abiogenesis to be valid.   ETs could have planted the seeds of life and Evolution would be valid.  A supernatural deity could have planted the seeds of life and Evolution would still be valid.   A deity may have conjured up new or additional seeds during the Cambrian explosion and evolution would still be valid.

The fact is, Scientists know for certain that all placental mammals share a common ancestor.  They know this because the genetic evidence.
Using genetic and embryological evidence they can connect all chordates,  heck, all deuterostomes to a common ancestor.  

Scientists have made these determinations INDEPENDENT of the validity of abiogenesis.

Again...Scientists have made these determinations INDEPENDENT of the validity of abiogenesis.

Google "placental mammals" + "common ancestor".  



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:27 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:53 AM on March 3, 2009 :
Actually to get back to the original question, the onus is on the evolutionist to show that abiogenesis is remotely possible instead of assuming and running with the invisible ball.


If we give you another list will you address it?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:37 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.