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
     An Issue w/ Macro-Evolution

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

    
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Micro-evolution is evident in the world around us (i.e. species adapt to their environment) Any thinking person should accept this scientific version of evolution.

Macro-evolution is the real issue here. This dogma asserts that all living things evolved from a single-celled organism that mystically appeared billions of years ago.

A couple of questions for all macro-evolutionists:
1) Where did the single-celled organism come from?
2) How do you get life from non-living matter?

On this point, it seems to me that macro-evolution is calling for the same blind faith that creationists are accused of having. The only difference being the terms...
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 08:05 AM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

1) Where did the single-celled organism come from?
2) How do you get life from non-living
matter?


What does this have to do with macro evolution?  Where life came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Does the fact that we don't know where matter comes from affect the validity of chemistry?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:25 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks
Micro-evolution is evident in the world around us (i.e. species adapt to their environment) Any thinking person should accept this scientific version of evolution.
That's not a version.
Macro-evolution is the real issue here.
The moment you define it we'll show you either:
a) An easy example.
b) That your definition is ridiculous.
This dogma asserts that all living things evolved from a single-celled organism that mystically appeared billions of years ago.
So, a) it is.
A couple of questions for all macro-evolutionists:
1) Where did the single-celled organism come from?
Yahveh made it. And Evolution is still a fact.
2) How do you get life from non-living matter?
A supernatural being must do it.

And Evolution is still a fact.

Man, this forum isn't about abiogenesis.

Treat the subject or go away.



-------
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: 7:40 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,
You wrote:
>>Where life came from has nothing to do with evolution.

I don't see the grounds for your argument. Evolution is an explanation of how the complex life forms we see today evolved over time.

If you propose a theory that says 'All living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism,' a logical response is to question where the first organism came from. To say that they are not related seems like wishful thinking. Maybe you don't want them to be related??
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 01:57 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon
Where life came from has nothing to do with evolution.
I don't see the grounds for your argument.
Let me explain: The Theory of Evolution is about Evolution.

Clearer now?

Evolution is an explanation of how the complex life forms we see today evolved over time.
It explains that, yes.
If you propose a theory that says 'All living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism,'
The theory doesn't say that.

We might.

a logical response is to question where the first organism came from.
Where is the logic in that?

Can you not explain chemistry without referring to the origin of matter?

Every single theory focuses on something. Abiogenesis falls out of the ToE's focus.

To say that they are not related seems like wishful thinking. Maybe you don't want them to be related??
Sigh...

Ok, fine, they're related. Not very closely, but everything is related to everything else.

But even if they are related, so what?
Let's say that Yahweh did it.
So? Evolution is still a fact. You haven't said anything about (or against) it.

Assume whatever you want about the first cell, and focus on Evolution.
Now, if you can't focus, go away.

Or better yet: Start a forum on Creationism VS Abiogenesis. That would be cool (and it would still require for you to go away).



-------
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: 02:09 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
Thanks for responding. I'm not sure how to quote you in the boxes like you did for me so I'll just use arrows (>>).

>>That's not a version.
Well, we could call it a "type" or "kind" of evolution if you prefer.

>>The moment you define it we'll show you either: a) An easy example. b) That your definition is ridiculous.
Since you obviously didn't have an issue with my definition, I'd like to ask for the "easy" scientific example you say you can provide. In other words, some very evident and tangible proof of macro-evolution.

>>A supernatural being must do it.
Obvious deduction from the laws of causality and non-contradiction.

>>And Evolution is still a fact.
Do you mean macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Both?

>>This forum isn't about abiogenesis. Treat the subject or go away.
I don't think you have dictatorial control over what is (and is not) to be discussed here. The teaching of evolution leads to some logical philosophical questions. If the evolutionary path leads into the realm of "abiogenesis" who are you to stop it? Personally, I think that in order to have any meaningful discussion, all sides should be free to ask questions. Otherwise, you end up with meaningless, unscientific pat-each-other-on-the-back agreement. This is a stale environment where truth cannot shine.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 02:39 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me put it this way: imagine that Odin made the first cells, which became everything we see today.
Wouldn't you call that 'macroevolution' too?

I bet you would.

That being the case, why bother discussing abiogenesis? Even if we granted to you that your  particular god was involved, that wouldn't mean that the Bible is true OR that the ToE is wrong.

So it's just a waste of everybody's time when trying to decide this debate (even if it's a very interesting field of study).



-------
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: 02:47 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
I see what you're saying a little clearer.

>>You haven't said anything about (or against) it.
I did discuss the difference between micro and macro-evolution. And I also said I didn't see the proof for macro-evolution

>>Assume whatever you want about the first cell, and focus on Evolution. Now, if you can't focus, go away.
You're limiting the debate. In other words, I have to argue for creationism on your terms. I don't think this is fair. Creationism necessarily includes HOW the first living thing came into existence. Since evolution precludes this question (without answering it) you don't think I should be talking about it.

I am willing to discuss macro-evolution from the first cell onward and "focus" as you put it. But abiogensis must be discussed in this context because creationism is intimately interested in not only what happened but also how and why. I don't think evolution adequately addresses these concerns.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 03:06 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
>>Wouldn't you call that 'macroevolution' too?
Yes.

>>Even if we granted to you that your  particular god was involved, that wouldn't mean that the Bible is true OR that the ToE is wrong.
Ok, I see your point. It's not DIRECTLY related to the subject at hand (although it is related). In other words, abiogenesis matters to creationists but not to evolutionists. Thanks for helping me get some clarity.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 03:14 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think wisp expressed that well.  Abiogenesis and evolution are related but are 2 different processes.  Biologists don't study abiogenesis, biochemists do.  Evolution is contingent only on life existing, how it got there is not part of the theory of evolution.  
I thought my example of where does matter come from and the validity of chemistry was pretty good, we ultimately don't know exactly where matter comes from but chemistry still works, just like we don't know exactly how the first life formed but evolution is still valid.
As to macro evolution, it has been observed, so it's a fact, we have seen new species arising.

(Edited by Demon38 12/12/2009 at 03:43 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:41 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure how to quote you in the boxes like you did for me
When responding, press 'quote'. You'll see the codes and, if you pay attention, you might learn how to use them.

That' not a version.
Well, we could call it a"type" or "kind" of evolution if you prefer.
I don't.

I call walking 'walking', whether it's for ten meters or ten kilometers.

The moment you define it we'll show you either:
a) An easy example.
b) That your definition is ridiculous.
Since you obviously didn't have an issue with my definition, I'd like to ask for the "easy" scientific example you say you can provide.
YECs tend to have a hard time knowing when to use the expressions 'obviously', 'actually' and 'in fact'.

Your definition is crap.

I happen to believe that in the early stages of life there was so much horizontal gene transfer that there was no individual cell we could say that was the LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

In other words, some very evident and tangible proof of macro-evolution.

You said the secret word!!

There are no proofs in Science.
In other words, you're scientifically illiterate.

A supernatural being must do it.
Obvious deduction from the laws of causality and non-contradiction.
That word again...

Are you sure that those laws speak about the first cells?

Meh. So be it. I don't care. Not in this forum anyway.

And Evolution is still a fact.
Do you mean macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Both?
I mean the change of allele frequencies in populations of organisms (by means of mutations, gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc).

What do you call that?
I call it 'Evolution', by the way.

This forum isn't about abiogenesis. Treat the subject or go away.
I don't think you have dictatorial control over what is (and is not) to be discussed here.
The mods do. And this forum is about Evolution and Creationism. You're addressing none. And i can report you if you don't want to talk about what this forum is about and prefer to troll instead.

The teaching of evolution leads to some logical philosophical questions. If the evolutionary path leads into the realm of "abiogenesis" who are you to stop it?
If you think abiogenesis is philosophy you're not only scientifically illiterate but philosophically illiterate as well.

Personally,
That word you use pretty accurately.
I think that in order to have any meaningful discussion, all sides should be free to ask questions.
Me too, as long as they stay in subject.

Yours don't.

This is a stale environment where truth cannot shine.
'This' is about Science. And Science doesn't deal with shining truths (or philosophy), but with evidence and predictions.

I see what you're saying a little clearer.
I'm honestly surprised.
You haven't said anything about (or against) it.
I did discuss the difference between micro and macro-evolution.
You certainly have not.

And I also said I didn't see the proof for macro-evolution
And you never will, no matter how you define 'macroevolution'.

There are no proofs in Science.

Read this and find out why.

Assume whatever you want about the first cell, and focus on Evolution. Now, if you can't focus, go away.
You're limiting the debate.
Well d'oh!

Of course i am.
I'm limiting it to the subject of this forum.

If you want an unlimited debate, take it somewhere else.

In other words, I have to argue for creationism on your terms.
No. Choose your own terms. Define them however you please. But stay in subject.

Creationism VS Evolution.

I don't think this is fair.
Indeed. You people have that mindset.

You're too used to do what you want in the name of Yahweh and get away with it.

Creationism necessarily includes HOW the first living thing came into existence.
Indeed it does. So you provide evidence for your version. We'll discuss that. It would be in subject.

Evolution endorses NO version of that. So abiogenesis is NOT in subject.

Get it?

Since evolution precludes this question (without answering it) you don't think I should be talking about it.
Exactly!! Well said!

Wait... Do you think there's anything wrong with it?

Do you think there's anything wrong with Chemistry if it explains the interaction of elements without answering where they came from?


I am willing to discuss macro-evolution from the first cell onward and "focus" as you put it.
The ToE doesn't provide a specific story. WE draw it from the theory.

The further back you go, the less precise the story will be.

But abiogensis must be discussed in this context because creationism is intimately interested in not only what happened but also how and why.
No it mustn't.

Creationism is also interested in the beginning of the Universe, and even in the afterlife.

The ToE has no obligation to address every silly creationist question. Only those silly ones about the evolution of living organisms.

I don't think evolution adequately addresses these concerns.
Not adequately nor inadequately.

It doesn't address those concerns (of yours) in any way.

Too bad. That's the way things are.



-------
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: 04:08 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,
>>we ultimately don't know exactly where matter comes from...
I think of E-mc^2. Obviously there had to be an infinite amount of energy involved in the process.

>>just like we don't know exactly how the first life formed...
We can rule out that it self created itself due to the law of noncontradiction. (How could it exist to bring itself into existence?)

Anyway, I'm getting back on abiogenesis...

As far as macro-evolution is concerned, what new species have we seen? Have we ever seen or found evidence for animals evolving between the five major categories? (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds) or do they all just have a common (theoretical) ancestor?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 04:09 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 04:09 AM on December 12, 2009 :
Demon,
>>we ultimately don't know exactly where matter comes from...
I think of E-mc^2.
Matter and energy are the same thing. So E=mc2 doesn't axplain anything.
Obviously there had to be an infinite amount of energy involved in the process.
There's that word again...

No, it's not obvious. Not for the brightest minds that investigate those subjects.

If you know better (obviously) tell them.

just like we don't know exactly how the first life formed...
We can rule out that it self created itself due to the law of noncontradiction. (How could it exist to bring itself into existence?)
You're just playing with words.  What about snowflakes?
Anyway, I'm getting back on abiogenesis...
Yeah, but it touches the subject of self-organization and emerging patterns, which happen with living AND non-living things.

As far as macro-evolution is concerned, what new species have we seen?
Many. Google it. We've posted several.

And, by the way, modern creationists don't discuss speciation anymore (without it Noah should have embarked millions of animals]. You've been left behind. Now they talk about 'information'.

Have we ever seen or found evidence for animals evolving between the five major categories? (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds)
Yes. Tons. Lots and lots of evidence.

Fish>amphibian>reptile>mammal.

From reptile to mammal the record is very rich.
or do they all just have a common (theoretical) ancestor?
'Or'? AND!

Do you see any incompatibilities?



-------
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: 04:47 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can rule out that it self created itself due to the law of noncontradiction.

I never heard of the scientific law of noncontradiction, can you give me a scientific paper that discusses it?

How could it exist to bring itself into existence?

Life is a process, so it could have easily started when the proper components were brought together.  There's no evidence that life must come from life and a lot of evidence for life coming from non life.  It's all just chemical reactions.

As far as macro-evolution is concerned, what new species have we seen?

From here:
Observed Speciation

Plants:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Tragopogon
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Maize (Zea mays)

Animals:
Drosophila paulistorum
Apple Maggot Fly
Gall Former Fly
Flour Beetles
Nereis acuminata

Check the site for details.  
Then you can also look up "ring species"

Then there are the cichlid fish of Lake Nagubago.  We have observed many examples of speciation (macroevolution).  As I said, it's a fact.

Have we ever seen or found evidence for animals evolving between the five major categories? (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds) or do they all just have a common (theoretical) ancestor?

We've found an overwhelming amount of evidence for transitions between  these groups.  Pick one and we can discuss it in detail.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:49 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] test

I just wanted to test this out first.

[random] to see

How it works
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 05:34 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 04:09 AM on December 12, 2009 :
Demon,
>>we ultimately don't know exactly where matter comes from...
I think of E-mc^2. Obviously there had to be an infinite amount of energy involved in the process.

Why infinite?  The observable universe is finite.


>>just like we don't know exactly how the first life formed...
We can rule out that it self created itself due to the law of noncontradiction. (How could it exist to bring itself into existence?)


Chemistry based on the vast amounts of biological precursor molecules found in meteorites seems to be sufficient.  Do you accept chemistry and quantum mechanics as being valid science?

Anyway, I'm getting back on abiogenesis...

As far as macro-evolution is concerned, what new species have we seen?


A number of new species have been found which have evolved from parent populations within recorded history as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.  None of them will satisfy the creationist cartoon version of the TOE however.

Have we ever seen or found evidence for animals evolving between the five major categories? (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds) or do they all just have a common (theoretical) ancestor?


Yes, very compelling evidence.  Fossils, morphology, molecular genetics, etc.  Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.



-------
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: 05:40 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I call walking 'walking', whether it's for ten meters or ten kilometers.


Well, by your definition, I "believe" in evolution. But, at the moment, I only see evidence for micro-evolution. So in that sense I only believe in part of evolution (a version or a type of evolution).

The reason I said you "obviously" don't have a problem with my definition is that you wrote

The moment you define it we'll show you…


Since I had provided my general definition of macro-evolution, I assumed you didn't have a problem with it because you did not 'show me that my definition is ridiculous the moment I defined it.'

YECs tend to have a hard time knowing when to use the expressions 'obviously', 'actually' and 'in fact'.


See above. Maybe you’re having a hard time discerning what people are saying because you’re so focused on providing a critique of their words.

Your definition is crap.


Your opinion. That's my current understanding. If you want to berate it, that's your choice. I’m sure there are some reasonable people here that would generally agree with my definition of macro-evolution.

There was no individual cell we could say that was the LUCA (last universal common ancestor).


Pure speculation.

There are no proofs in Science.


I didn't ask for "proofs" I asked for "proof" or "evidence." This is equivocation. You are using the same word but it has a different meaning so your statement that I'm "scientifically illiterate" is meaningless. Also, even if I had asked for "proofs" this would not justify you calling ME "scientifically illiterate" it would only justify you saying that I'm not USING scientific terms.

Are you sure that those laws speak about the first cells?


I just know that all effects must have a cause. If “the first cells” are effects then there must be a cause.

I mean the change of allele frequencies in populations of organisms (by means of mutations, gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc). What do you call that?


Evolution in some cases, devolution in others.

This forum isn't about abiogenesis. Treat the subject or go away.


Yeah, you’ve made that quite clear (in a rather rude manner). I am new to this forum. I’m approaching the subject with limited knowledge. I would appreciate some patience figuring out what’s “acceptable” for discussion (accroding to you), especially seeing that you admit the two topics are “related.” Maybe you could try being a little less abrasive.

This forum is about Evolution and Creationism. You're addressing none. And i can report you if you don't want to talk about what this forum is about and prefer to troll instead.


As I wrote, I’m willing to discuss this subject. You seem more interested in nitpicking what people say, making fun of them and threatening to tell mommy. Maybe that’s the easy thing to do, but I don’t think it’s intellectually honest. Real debate is also about listening. Ad Hominem attacks are unscientific distraction.

If you think abiogenesis is philosophy you're not only scientifically illiterate but philosophically illiterate as well.


More personal attacks. Philosophy by definition is “a search for a general understanding of… reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.” By this definition, you’ve incorporated philosophy into evolution in your views of how the first (few) cells appeared. Also, biochemistry is unable to answer how life came from non-life. Since this process has NEVER been observed, they must also resort to speculation.
Since philosophy has nothing to do with science, I must assume that your remark about me being “not only sceintifically illiterate” must refer to your earlier comment that has already been refuted. Also, as I have just demonstrated, your attack against me as being “philosophically illiterate as well” is absolutely groundless and one that would also implicate you if it were true.

Me too, as long as they stay in subject.


In the context of this discussion forum I see your point. In the real world, I think you are wrong. I think it’s only natural to ask leading questions. I think you would agree with this since you already admitted that “everything is related” earlier.

Science doesn't deal with shining truths (or philosophy), but with evidence and predictions.


As I showed above, science (specifically biochemistry) does deal with philosophy by speculating how the first living cell came into existence. Also, basic science classes do present truth. For example, gravity is a reality. We can measure it’s power, make calculations about it’s effects on light traveling through space, etc. If you don’t want to accept gravity as a “truth” then you would have to remeasure it’s power every time you wanted to make a calculation. This would be redundant. We can easily accept the veracity of gravity and use our foundation of knowledge about it to make further discoveries. In this example, you are relying on a “truth.”
Oh, you also said that science deals with “evidence” but earlier gave me a hard time for asking for “proof.” This shows that equivocation was happening in your argument.

I'm honestly surprised.


You’re surprised that I see the topic more clearly? Are you insulting my ability to learn or expressing your surprise that a “creationist” could learn something?

And you never will, no matter how you define 'macroevolution'.


I guess you answered my question. You seem to have lumped all creationists into one group and made a judgment about their ability to weigh evidence and reach conclusions. That’s called arrogant.

There are no proofs in Science.


Since I have not discussed “proofs” at all, this is irrelevant.

You people have that mindset.


“You people?” LOL! You sound like a racist. Try not putting everyone that doesn’t agree with you into a box.

Indeed it does. So you provide evidence for your version. We'll discuss that. It would be in subject.


So it’s ok for me to discuss how the first cell came about from a creationist view but not from an evolutionary view? So why were you saying that it wasn’t “in subject” for me to discuss? Now you’re saying it’s ok? Why are you waffling?

Wait... Do you think there's anything wrong with it?


I don’t think there’s anything wrong with keeping the debate only about evolution if we were in an evolution forum. But this is creationism vs. evolution. Since you admitted that abiogenesis is “on topic” for creationists, it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss here. However, I agree with you that it does not accomplish anything. Evolutionists don’t care about that.

The ToE doesn't provide a specific story. WE draw it from the theory. The further back you go, the less precise the story will be.


In other words, you need to use philosophical speculation.

Matter and energy are the same thing.


No. Energy is matter times the speed of light squared. If you break matter, (atom) you release the energy (atomic bomb). The atom is not “the same” as the energy it releases when it is split.

What about snowflakes?


Droplets of moisure in the clouds freeze. Snowflakes do not “self-create” themselves. Furthermore, snowflakes are not alive and thus do not pertain to the subject under discussion in the slightest.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 05:48 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 05:48 AM on December 12, 2009 :


I just know that all effects must have a cause.


Does this mean you do not believe in quantum mechanics?



-------
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: 05:53 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I never heard of the scientific law of noncontradiction, can you give me a scientific paper that discusses it?


The law of noncontradiction is not a scientific law, it’s a common law of logic. A star cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Either it exists or it doesn’t.

There's no evidence that life must come from life.

Other than the fact that all life on our planet comes from other life. We don’t just see trees popping up out of the ground. We also don’t see animals growing out of the ground. There is not one living thing that we have EVER observed (science) that has come from non-living matter. I’d say that is sufficient evidence for the premise.

A lot of evidence for life coming from non life. It's all just chemical reactions.


Can you provide one piece of evidence that life can come from non-life? I’ve got every living thing on earth as my evidence, what’s yours?

Animals:
Drosophila paulistorum
Apple Maggot Fly
Gall Former Fly
Flour Beetles
Nereis acuminata

cichlid fish of Lake Nagubago


I’m not too interested in the evolution of plants, but I’m going to check out these animals you’ve listed. I’d like to learn more about this.

We've found an overwhelming amount of evidence for transitions between  these groups.  Pick one and we can discuss it in detail.


Ok, how about from mammals to birds?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 06:05 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does this mean you do not believe in quantum mechanics?


No, it just means that I think all effects must have a cause.

 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 06:14 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,

Why infinite?  The observable universe is finite.

Because I read a book (Stephen Hawking) where he said when the universe was at the point of singularity, it was at infinite mass and infinite density. Maybe his calculations are incorrect. I’m not sure. Either way, there had to be energy to get matter.

Chemistry based on the vast amounts of biological precursor molecules found in meteorites seems to be sufficient.


To bring non-living matter to life? Has any chemist been able to do reproduce this in the lab? If we can’t do it now, with all our technology, I don’t think it seems reasonable for it to happen by chance.

Do you accept chemistry and quantum mechanics as being valid science?

As far as their results can be verified.


A number of new species have been found which have evolved from parent populations within recorded history as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.  None of them will satisfy the creationist cartoon version of the TOE however.


What do you mean that they evolved from parent populations? Do you have an example?

Fossils, morphology, molecular genetics, etc.  Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.


Can you provide me with a link to a site that discusses the fossil evidence for evolution between species? I’d like to see if any physical evidence has been found.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 06:26 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The law of noncontradiction is not a scientific law, it’s a common law of logic. A star cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Either it exists or it doesn’t.

Yes, but a star isn't life.  And if a star never existed before but the components that make up a star come together for the first time, like hydrogen under massive gravity, then a star can exist, where there were none before.  So your law of noncontradiction is meaningless here and doesn't prevent life from forming where none existed before.

Other than the fact that all life on our planet comes from other life.

And yet, at one point in the earth's history, there was no life.  And at a later point in time, there was life.  So the first life had to come from non life.

We don’t just see trees popping up out of the ground. We also don’t see animals growing out of the ground. There is not one living thing that we have EVER observed (science) that has come from non-living matter. I’d say that is sufficient evidence for the premise.

And the fact that at one time there was no life on the planet, and there was, disproves your point.

Can you provide one piece of evidence that life can come from non-life?

From here:
Volcano Life

"How the primitive Earth cooked up proteins is a chemical mystery. These molecules - vital to biological functions - are made of long strands of hundreds of amino acids, but researchers are unclear how even some of the shortest amino acid chains, called peptides, formed prior to the dawn of living organisms.

Recent experiments have demonstrated how a volcanic gas, carbonyl sulfide (COS), may have been instrumental in the "prebiotic" build-up of peptides.

There are several mechanisms for connecting amino acids. Organisms use enzymes, and chemists have identified other catalysts that can do the job. However, Leslie Orgel from the Salk Institute points out that few of these things were ingredients of Earth's environment billions of years ago.

"With carbonyl sulfide, we have a very realistic agent," Orgel said. This gas is known to fume out of volcanoes today and was likely present in the planet's fiery past.

Orgel and colleagues formed peptides by adding COS to a watery solution containing various amino acids at room temperature. About 7 percent of the amino acids formed pairs and triplets. This peptide yield increased to as high as 80 percent when the researchers added metal ions to the solution.

The results, published in the Oct. 8 issue of the journal Science, lend credence to a theory that life arose near underwater volcanic vents, which to this day support thriving, self-contained ecosystems."

I’ve got every living thing on earth as my evidence, what’s yours?

How in the world is this evidence that life cannot come from non life????  Care to elaborate?

Ok, how about from mammals to birds?

Birds did not evolve from mammals.  Mammals evolved from reptiles and birds look like they evolved from dinosaurs.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:59 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, it just means that I think all effects must have a cause.

But quantum mechanics shows us that all effects DON'T need a cause, that things can happen UNcaused.  So I guess you don't accept quantum mechanics.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:11 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38,

And if a star never existed before but the components that make up a star come together for the first time, like hydrogen under massive gravity, then a star can exist, where there were none before.


This is not a contradiction. This explains a process. I agree with you. I wasn’t saying that a star can’t exist where there wasn’t one before.  A contradiction would be like saying “There is a star there and there isn’t a star there.” Either it’s there or it’s not. It can’t “be there” and “not be there” at the same time.

So your law of noncontradiction is meaningless here and doesn't prevent life from forming where none existed before.


But the contradiction isn’t that life formed where it didn’t exist before. I agree that life had a beginning and that it didn’t exist before.

And yet, at one point in the earth's history, there was no life.  And at a later point in time, there was life.  So the first life had to come from non life.


You have created a polarized dilemma. You assume that since life appeared on our planet, it must have come from non-life. I agree that this is one option. But you have ruled out another possibility, namely, that life on our planet could have come from an outside source that is alive. Thus, the real dilemma is this:

Either life originated from life or from non-life.

The only evidence we have to decide between these two options is observation. All our observation suggests that life can only come from life. Thus if we are going to be consistently scientific, we must follow the evidence where it leads.

And the fact that at one time there was no life on the planet, and there was, disproves your point.


The fact that there was no life on the planet at one time does not negate the observational data that suggests that all life comes from life.

"How the primitive Earth cooked up proteins is a chemical mystery… researchers are unclear how even some of the shortest amino acid chains, called peptides, formed prior to the dawn of living organisms.


This article is talking about making protein, not life. And they’re saying they are “unclear” how even the “shortest amino acid chains” could form, much less how you get to “long strands of hundreds of amino acids.” They’re basically admitting that they have no idea. They’re guessing/speculating/philosophizing.

Again, do you have any observational (scientific) data that shows that life can come from non-life?

I’ve got every living thing on earth as my evidence, what’s yours?

How in the world is this evidence that life cannot come from non life????  Care to elaborate?


Sure. Please don’t get me wrong. When you quote what I wrote it sounds very condescending. I’m not trying to be rude. I’m just saying that the evidence is in my favor. If I said that life “cannot” come from non-life I didn’t mean to. What I meant is that all the observational data leads me to the conclusion that life comes from life. I admit that it’s possible that life can come from non-life. All things are possible. But there is no observational/experiential data to support that theory. I choose to follow the evidence.

Birds did not evolve from mammals.


So what if we decided to try and evolve into birds? Do you think we could evolve over millions of years by practicing our flying technique and sitting in nests? What if we tried to take control of evolution?

Do you have an example of the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 08:28 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38,

But quantum mechanics shows us that all effects DON'T need a cause, that things can happen UNcaused.  So I guess you don't accept quantum mechanics.


Are you talking about electrons changing orbits? What exactly has quantum mechanics demonstrated to be UNcaused?

I still accept causality because it describes reality. It uses the method of observation. If someone builds a house you have the builder (cause) and the house (effect). In physics - an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon (effect) by an outside force (cause). In chemistry – mixing two substances (cause) and the resulting compound (effect). In fact, our whole debate about where life came from follows the same logic. We said either life (effect) comes from another life form (cause) or non-living materials (cause). We’re looking for the cause. I would be highly surprised if this consistency in our physical universe suddenly became irrelevant.

 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 08:39 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 08:28 AM on December 12, 2009 :
This is not a contradiction. This explains a process. I agree with you. I wasn’t saying that a star can’t exist where there wasn’t one before.  A contradiction would be like saying “There is a star there and there isn’t a star there.” Either it’s there or it’s not. It can’t “be there” and “not be there” at the same time.


Welcome to quantum mechanics where such ideas are a possibility. Personally I only know of photons that can/do exist and don't exist in two places at the exact same time.

You have created a polarized dilemma. You assume that since life appeared on our planet, it must have come from non-life. I agree that this is one option. But you have ruled out another possibility, namely, that life on our planet could have come from an outside source that is alive.


Then the question becomes where did the life of this other life come from? If we say that it came from life, the same question applies ad infinitum. If we then say that this other life (or however far we go with the ad infinitum statement) came from non-living matter, why impose such a statement on them and not on life on Earth? Especially since there is no direct evidence what-so-ever that there is other life out there.

One could declare that a supreme being (i.e. God) created life ex nihilo. However, this line of reasoning is without any hard, positive evidence to support it. So while one may believe this, and quite strongly, it is not what the evidence suggests.

The only evidence we have to decide between these two options is observation. All our observation suggests that life can only come from life. Thus if we are going to be consistently scientific, we must follow the evidence where it leads.


I assume you are referring to the cell theory? Or perhaps the law of biogenesis? Either way, these are tough questions, both scientifically and theologically/philosophically. And, if we are to stick with observation, we have neither empirically observed the supernatural or other life outside of Earth. But, we have observed several possible pathways for life to have come about through non-life as seen through the various hypotheses of abiogenesis.

This article is talking about making protein, not life. And they’re saying they are “unclear” how even the “shortest amino acid chains” could form, much less how you get to “long strands of hundreds of amino acids.” They’re basically admitting that they have no idea. They’re guessing/speculating/philosophizing.


And I assure you that while we do not know how life could have formed from non-life in in-depth detail, it doesn't negate what we do know about pre-biotic Earth, the experiments scientists have done with this data, and the conclusions they have reached. Science has come a long, yet short, way of explaining the origin of life. And the knowledge gained increases every day and none of it lends credence to the creationism/ID movement.

Again, do you have any observational (scientific) data that shows that life can come from non-life?

I’ve got every living thing on earth as my evidence, what’s yours?


Mine is science. Everything from biology, to astronomy, to chemistry, to geology and everything in-between and hovering above and below.  

What I meant is that all the observational data leads me to the conclusion that life comes from life. I admit that it’s possible that life can come from non-life. All things are possible. But there is no observational/experiential data to support that theory. I choose to follow the evidence.


There is evidence for non-life turning into life.

So what if we decided to try and evolve into birds? Do you think we could evolve over millions of years by practicing our flying technique and sitting in nests? What if we tried to take control of evolution?


"By practicing our flying technique and sitting in nests?"? That is not how evolution works.

Do you have an example of the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs?


Archeopteryx and microraptor.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:23 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Truthworks - welcome to the forum.

You seem to be particularly interested in the question of 'where exactly did life come from?'.

I agree that evolution and abiogenesis are two seperate topics.  We don't need to understand the origin of life to see that evolution has occurred - for those who accept evolution.

Abiogenesis, though, is still work in progress.   We have to admit that we don't know yet how life arose.  From a scientific perspective, nature had hundreds of millions of years to work out a solution, in an environment that is completely different from what we see today.  It's been only 56 years since Stanley Miller performed his famous experiment in 1953 - the year I was born, in fact.

But as fencer points out above, we have made some progress in those 56 years in discovering some hints and clues how life could have arose from non-life.  The key is that it most certainly occurred in steps.

For an example, biologist debate whether a virus is a true living form.  Viruses can't replicate on their own.  They need to invade a cell and use its resources to replicate itself.  A virus is sort of on the border between living and non-living.  In a gray area.

Origin of life is a facinating question.  People can say that God created the first life.  But that's a rather unstatisfying answer for me.  For one thing, this leads to the obvious question - but then where did God come from?  I don't know about you, but I have a problem with an enity being around forever, for infinity.  

So looking at the other option, that life arose from non-life, makes more sense to me.  And it does fit in with the picture that evolution presents.  

You ask 'But how did it occur?'  Scinece doesn't know the answer to that yet.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:06 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks
I call walking 'walking', whether it's for ten meters or ten kilometers.
Well, by your definition, I "believe" in evolution.
Cool. Because that's what Evolution IS. Not the X-Men version YECs pretend it to be.
But, at the moment, I only see evidence for micro-evolution.
Define micro and macroevolution in a way that allows for no gray areas.

I bet you can't.

And, if you don't, then you don't know what you're talking about.
So in that sense I only believe in part of evolution (a version or a type of evolution).
No. In no real sense. You just don't know what you're talking about.

If you do, demonstrate it. Define micro and macroevolution.

If i find a gray area, you lose.

The reason I said you "obviously" don't have a problem with my definition is that you wrote

The moment you define it we'll show you…
Since I had provided my general definition of macro-evolution, I assumed you didn't have a problem with it because you did not 'show me that my definition is ridiculous the moment I defined it.'
Yes i did. Lots and lots of times, actually.

Once again:
Evolution doesn't address the problem of how life started.

There.

YECs tend to have a hard time knowing when to use the expressions 'obviously', 'actually' and 'in fact'.
See above.
Did that.
Maybe you’re having a hard time discerning what people are saying because you’re so focused on providing a critique of their words.
Doesn't seem likely, but i'll try to be aware of that.

Your definition is crap.
Your opinion.
Nono. It's objective. Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, so your definition of some virtual part of it (Macro-evolution = a dogma asserts that all living things evolved from a single-celled organism that mystically appeared billions of years ago) is, objectively, pure and undiluted crap.
That's my current understanding.
Your current understanding is crap. Sorry.
If you want to berate it, that's your choice.
I'm just pointing it out.
I’m sure there are some reasonable people here that would generally agree with my definition of macro-evolution.
You're sure?

Well, ask around.

There was no individual cell we could say that was the LUCA (last universal common ancestor).
Pure speculation.
How could it be impure?
There are no proofs in Science.
I didn't ask for "proofs" I asked for "proof"
I don't know what you're saying (looks like nothing), but there are still no proofs in Science.

I don't know if you're saying that there's any difference between one proof and several. But since there are none, you're still lost.
or "evidence."
Nah, you didn't say that.

The word 'evidence' appears at the 11th post (which was mine).

You asked for evidence later, and you've been told that it was abundant.

The progression from reptile to mammals is well documented.

Let me show you a segment of that progression:

Just the bones. No imagination (you YECs seem to hate imagination, except when it helps the Bible).

Since i do like imagination (especially when it's educated and based in a great body of knowledge), i'll also show you this:


Of course, they are found in that exact order in the geological strata, which doesn't surprise us because we know, and doesn't surprise YECs because they don't want to.

This is equivocation.
'Proofs' is the plural form of 'proof', and 'evidence' is not the same as 'proof'.

I understand what those words mean. If you don't that's not my fault.
You are using the same word
What's that word? 'Proof' or 'Evidence'? I see two.

You're really crazy, Humpty Dumpty. You say that 'proof' and 'proofs' are separate things, and that 'proof' and 'evidence' are one word.

Isn't that what you said?

but it has a different meaning
I'm using the real meanings.

From here:


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.
Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.


From here:

Of course it can't be proved! And 'scientists' know that perfectly well, and they don't make 'protestations of requiring proof rather than faith' - they ask for evidence. Not proof, evidence. There's a difference - a big difference. It's so basic, and yet so many people seem to have no clue. That's alarming.

so your statement that I'm "scientifically illiterate" is meaningless.
No. It has a very precise meaning.
It means that when you talk you use non-scientific terms believing they are scientific, and scientific terms not knowing what they mean.

Thus, you're scientifically illiterate.

Also, even if I had asked for "proofs" this would not justify you calling ME "scientifically illiterate"
Yes it would. It doesn't matter if you asked for one proof or a thousand.
it would only justify you saying that I'm not USING scientific terms.
If you use terms that don't apply to Science while believing that they do, and not only that but you go ahead and use scientific terms not knowing what they mean, you're scientifically illiterate.

Are you sure that those laws speak about the first cells?
I just know that all effects must have a cause.
You're just defining "effect".
If “the first cells” are effects then there must be a cause.
How do you test for "effects"? How can you know if they are "effects" or not?

It appears that you're saying nothing.

I mean the change of allele frequencies in populations of organisms (by means of mutations, gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, etc). What do you call that?
Evolution in some cases, devolution in others.
Ok. Just like Humpty Dumpty, you're entitled to give words whatever mean you want.

Scientists call it 'Evolution' though.

So if you want to define it in any other way, then don't ask US for a 'proof'. Ask yourself.

I can tell you that bananas don't exist. I can ask you to 'prove' to me that they do.
By the way, i define 'bananas' as 'Invisible floating elephants'.

Once you get a regular elephant to float in an invisible fashion, it has become a banana.

This forum isn't about abiogenesis. Treat the subject or go away.
Yeah, you’ve made that quite clear (in a rather rude manner).
Orion is our nice guy.

I tried, but failed miserably.
I am new to this forum. I’m approaching the subject with limited knowledge.
That's ok. We all have limited knowledge. But you pretend to have more than you actually do.
I would appreciate some patience figuring out what’s “acceptable” for discussion (accroding to you),
Ok, i'll try to be more patient. It's a reasonable request.

You try to be more openminded. Ok?
especially seeing that you admit the two topics are “related.”
Admit? Of course. Any two topics are related somehow. Why wold these two be any different?
Maybe you could try being a little less abrasive.
Ok, but you're playing innocent, while you suggested that we're dogmatic and mystical.

This forum is about Evolution and Creationism. You're addressing none. And i can report you if you don't want to talk about what this forum is about and prefer to troll instead.
As I wrote, I’m willing to discuss this subject. You seem more interested in nitpicking what people say,
If what you say doesn't matter, then don't.
making fun of them
Fun is fun. =D
and threatening to tell mommy.
Hahaha!

You see? You're making fun of me. And it was fun.

Maybe that’s the easy thing to do, but I don’t think it’s intellectually honest.
I'm very honest, intellectually speaking.

Real debate is also about listening.
Yeah, to stuff about the subject under discussion.
Ad Hominem attacks are unscientific distraction.
Yes, they are.
Have i done that?
Quote me.
Put up, or shut up.
I'm guessing you're yet another YEC who doesn't understand what ad hominem means.

If you think abiogenesis is philosophy you're not only scientifically illiterate but philosophically illiterate as well.
More personal attacks.
You're personally illiterate on those aspects which are an important part of what you're saying.

I'm not saying "You're ugly, therefore you're wrong".

Philosophy by definition is “a search for a general understanding of… reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.” By this definition, you’ve incorporated philosophy into evolution in your views of how the first (few) cells appeared.
No i didn't. Not only abiogenesis theories are based on huge amounts of observation (even when they can't all be correct), but also they don't add anything to our understanding of reality.

Your own definition pwns you.

Also, biochemistry is unable to answer how life came from non-life.
No it's not.

It can tell you lots of things about that.

They can be wrong though.

Since this process has NEVER been observed, they must also resort to speculation.
Yes, indeed.

Speculation is an important part of Science.

YECs use that word as if it's something bad.

You don't like Science.

Now is when you get offended. But it's true. If you really understood what Science is about, it would be clear to you that you don't like it.

Since philosophy has nothing to do with science,
Wrong.

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

Everything has to do with everything. In this case it's less far fetched than the connection between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

I must assume that your remark about me being “not only sceintifically illiterate” must refer to your earlier comment that has already been refuted.
Haha! Ok. xD

Also, as I have just demonstrated,
xD
your attack against me as being “philosophically illiterate as well” is absolutely groundless
Oh... Absolutely...
and one that would also implicate you if it were true.
I don't know why. I might actually be philosophically illiterate, but i still don't see the implication you talk about.

Me too, as long as they stay in subject.
In the context of this discussion forum I see your point.
Cool. Thanks!
In the real world, I think you are wrong.
Not "you are" but "you would be". Because we're here.

By the way, also in the real world i stop people from bringing up red herrings.

I think it’s only natural to ask leading questions. I think you would agree with this since you already admitted that “everything is related” earlier.
Yes. And some of those questions don't belong here.

Science doesn't deal with shining truths (or philosophy), but with evidence and predictions.
As I showed above, science (specifically biochemistry) does deal with philosophy by speculating how the first living cell came into existence.
Speculation IS Science, whether you like it or not.

The more a scientific field is advancing, the more speculation you'll see.

A speculation is basically an educated guess in front of incomplete evidence.

If the evidence for some scientific fact is pretty much complete, then that field isn't really advancing, is it?

Also, basic science classes do present truth.
No.
For example, gravity is a reality.
Yes. And you've just changed the subject from "truth" to "reality". If you use them as synonyms then you're equivocating at least one of those two.

We can measure it’s power, make calculations about it’s effects on light traveling through space, etc. If you don’t want to accept gravity as a “truth” then you would have to remeasure it’s power every time you wanted to make a calculation.
Now you're mistaking "truth" for "fact".

Man...

We can easily accept the veracity of gravity and use our foundation of knowledge about it to make further discoveries. In this example, you are relying on a “truth.”
Gravity isn't a truth. It's a fact.

Oh, you also said that science deals with “evidence” but earlier gave me a hard time for asking for “proof.”
Exactly! Yes!
This shows that equivocation was happening in your argument.
It shows the exact opposite. It shows YOUR equivocation.

I'm honestly surprised.
You’re surprised that I see the topic more clearly?
Yes. Sorry. Nothing personal. Just statistics.
Are you insulting my ability to learn or expressing your surprise that a “creationist” could learn something?
Why not both?

Look, in my experience creationists don't want to learn something that would jeopardize their faith. Not my fault.

And you never will, no matter how you define 'macroevolution'.
I guess you answered my question.
Yeah... By the way, there's no proof for the cell theory either.

You seem to have lumped all creationists into one group and made a judgment about their ability to weigh evidence and reach conclusions.
A statistical appreciation.
That’s called arrogant.
No. Arrogance is about oneself, not about the others.

Call it 'condescension' if you will.

And I also said I didn't see the proof for macro-evolution
There are no proofs in Science.
Since I have not discussed “proofs” at all, this is irrelevant.
You're crazy, you know?

You people have that mindset.
“You people?” LOL! You sound like a racist.
LOL!

But i have made no assumptions based on unrelated personal traits (not race, not anything). It's a statistical appreciation about you people.
Try not putting everyone that doesn’t agree with you into a box.
Don't worry. I have lots of boxes.

Yours is small and is labeled 'creationists'.

In your defense, i don't think you're particularly dumb or anything. Just a regular fellow.
Most regular fellows are scientifically illiterate.

Creationism necessarily includes HOW the first living thing came into existence.
Indeed it does. So you provide evidence for your version. We'll discuss that. It would be in subject.
So it’s ok for me to discuss how the first cell came about from a creationist view but not from an evolutionary view?

You got it!

I thought you wouldn't...

So why were you saying that it wasn’t “in subject” for me to discuss?
Because you don't speak about Abiogenesis (organization of non-living chemicals) from the Theory of Evolution (change of allele frequencies in living populations).

Now you’re saying it’s ok?
No, i'm not.
No, it's not.

Why are you waffling?
They are two things. One of them belongs to this subject because it's about Creationism. The other one doesn't because it's not about Creationism OR Evolution.



I don’t think there’s anything wrong with keeping the debate only about evolution if we were in an evolution forum.
Agreed.
But this is creationism vs. evolution.
Agreed.
Since you admitted that abiogenesis is “on topic” for creationists, it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss here.
I did not do such a thing.

You're mistaking 'creationism' and 'creationists', and i didn't say that about any of them anyway.

What i do say is that Creationism has a story about how life begun. Evolution doesn't.
Abiogenesis doesn't belong to ANY of those two.

Evidence or speculation about the Biblical story of how life started IS in subject.

Man, I'm being patient here, but it's not that hard to understand.
Make an effort.

However, I agree with you that it does not accomplish anything.
Good.
Evolutionists don’t care about that.
That's not true. Some do, some don't. I do. So do those who indulged you and responded to your off-topic, obviously.

I wish they didn't, but in any case it comes to show you that some of us ARE interested in that.
And the Big Bang Theory too.

I'm also interested in prosthetic devices, but i'm not talking about those here.

The ToE doesn't provide a specific story. WE draw it from the theory. The further back you go, the less precise the story will be.
In other words, you need to use philosophical speculation.
No. Plain old scientific speculation.

Since you're scientifically illiterate you don't see it.

Matter and energy are the same thing.
No.
Yes.
Energy is matter times the speed of light squared.
And kilometers are miles times 0.621371192.
If you break matter, (atom) you release the energy (atomic bomb). The atom is not “the same” as the energy it releases when it is split.
So says the scientifically illiterate guy.

By the way, your equation only works if the mass is static.

I think the complete formula is like this:


What about snowflakes?
Droplets of moisure in the clouds freeze. Snowflakes do not “self-create” themselves.
Cool. Then nobody says that life created itself.

So, can we drop that subject?

Furthermore, snowflakes are not alive and thus do not pertain to the subject under discussion in the slightest.
The subject is (to me at least) self-organization and emerging patterns, which happen with living AND non-living things.

Life is self-organization.


(Edited by wisp 12/12/2009 at 3:49 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: 3:46 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is not a contradiction. This explains a process. I agree with you. I wasn’t saying that a star can’t exist where there wasn’t one before.  A contradiction would be like saying “There is a star there and there isn’t a star there.” Either it’s there or it’s not. It can’t “be there” and “not be there” at the same time.

So since life is a process, the law of noncontradiction poses no obstacle to life forming from non life.

You have created a polarized dilemma. You assume that since life appeared on our planet, it must have come from non-life. I agree that this is one option. But you have ruled out another possibility, namely, that life on our planet could have come from an outside source that is alive. Thus, the real dilemma is this:
Either life originated from life or from
non-life.


This merely pushes back the question, where did the original life come from.  If you want to take it all the way back, at one point there was no life in this universe, then there was life.

The only evidence we have to decide between these two options is observation. All our observation suggests that life can only come from life. Thus if we are going to be consistently scientific, we must follow the evidence where it leads.

On this planet we see life coming from life because it is teeming with life.  If life is still forming from non life somewhere on earth, the existing life could be gobbling it up before we could discover it.  The fact that life itself has changed the environment might have made it impossible for those processes to repeat themselves.  and we haven't checked everywhere on the earth yet, have you personally observed what's going on in deep sea hydrothermal vents?

The fact that there was no life on the planet at one time does not negate the observational data that suggests that all life comes from life.

the universe began without life, then there was life in it.  Since we have no evidence that there is some supernatural, eternal source for life, the conclusion is life came from non life.  Until you can show us some observational evidence of a living source for this eternal life from which the life on earth sprang, the logoical conclusion is life came from non life.

This article is talking about making protein, not life. And they’re saying they are “unclear” how even the “shortest amino acid chains” could form, much less how you get to “long strands of hundreds of amino acids.” They’re basically admitting that they have no idea. They’re
guessing/speculating/philosophizing.


You asked for one piece of evidence, that's what you got.  They're not guessing/philosophizing, they're conducting experiments to show how organic processes could have formed from inorganic chemistry.
There is a great deal of evidence to support this, have you looked at any of it?  Or have you just decided it can't be true without even bothering to do any research?

Again, do you have any observational (scientific) data that shows that life can come from non-life?

Yes, there is a great deal of research going on in the subject, we see how cell walls could form, how RNA could have naturally formed, all kinds of interesting research.  the question is, have you looked at any of it before claiming life can't come from non life?

What I meant is that all the observational data leads me to the conclusion that life comes from life. I admit that it’s possible that life can come from non-life. All things are possible. But there is no observational/experiential data to support that theory. I choose to follow the
evidence.


but it seems you haven't looked at any of the data supporting abiogenesis.  How  can you make an informed claim when you haven't bothered to study the evidence.

So what if we decided to try and evolve into birds? Do you think we could evolve over millions of years by practicing our flying technique and sitting in nests?

That's not how evolution works.

What if we tried to take control of
evolution?


We've done this already on a limited scale, selective breeding, genetic manipulation, Darwinian medecine.  Evolution has proved incredbily useful to us so far and will only become more important to us in the future.

Do you have an example of the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

As Fencer27 mentioned, Archaeoptyx and microraptor.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:18 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 08:39 AM on December 12, 2009 :

Are you talking about electrons changing orbits? What exactly has quantum mechanics demonstrated to be UNcaused?


Quantum mechanics shows that events are deterministic, yet acausal.  For instance, if one has a mole (6.02x10^23 atoms) of a radioactive isotope, we can calculate very accurately how many will decay per unit time.  Nothing, however, will tell you what is going to happen to any single atom.

Another easily understood example is virtual particles.  Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, "empty" space is full of particles flitting in and out of existence.  We can measure this effect and even extract power from "empty" space via the Casimir effect.



-------
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: 4:22 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you talking about electrons changing orbits? What exactly has quantum mechanics demonstrated to be UNcaused?

From here:
Uncaused

"A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.


The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event."

Uncaused events described by quantum mechanics.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:42 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 06:05 AM on December 12, 2009 :

The law of noncontradiction is not a scientific law, it’s a common law of logic. A star cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Either it exists or it doesn’t.


Is this a star or not-star?



T-Tauri protostar


-------
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: 5:09 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate the balanced tone you have in your responses. You seem more reasonable about discussing this subject than wisp.

On this planet we see life coming from life because it is teeming with life.  If life is still forming from non life somewhere on earth, the existing life could be gobbling it up before we could discover it. The fact that life itself has changed the environment might have made it impossible for those processes to repeat themselves.  and we haven't checked everywhere on the earth yet, have you personally observed what's going on in deep sea hydrothermal vents?


That’s called a special plea. ‘Maybe somewhere, sometime we’ll discover evidence that will refute your theory.’ Until there is solid evidence, we have to use observation. The only thing we observe is life coming from non-life.
For example, let’s say I was sitting in a physics class and the instructor was talking about the Doppler effect. If I were to raise my hand and say ‘well, maybe there is a place in the universe where sound travels at the same speed as light.’ He could not refute me. It’s just an idea. But all the evidence we can observe (measure, hear, etc.) shows that sound does not travel at the speed of light. The burden of proof would be on me. Now let’s say that I’m in a room with 50 people other people that “believe” that sound can travel as fast as light in some special cases and there is one person that wants to stick with what he can observe. There would be nothing wrong with “believing” that sound can travel as fast as light, just as there would be nothing wrong with “believing” that life can come from non-life. Both views could be scientific but both groups would be forced to admit that (at least from what we can observe RIGHT NOW) that sound does not travel as fast as light, just as life does not come from non-life.

The universe began without life, then there was life in it.  Since we have no evidence that there is some supernatural, eternal source for life, the conclusion is life came from non life.


I don’t see that you have any data to support what you’re saying. I think both options are possible but the evidence (life comes from life) that we observe makes the non-living source highly impractical. It’s nothing but a theory.

Also, I doubt you would claim to know everything. I’m hoping that you would be hesitant to claim you even know 10% of everything. If that’s the case, then is it possible that the 90%+ that you don’t know could include “evidence that there is some supernatural, eternal source for life.” Maybe it’s there but you’re not willing to examine the evidence?

Until you can show us some observational evidence of a living source for this eternal life from which the life on earth sprang, the logoical conclusion is life came from non life.


I think I have found “observational evidence.” The most convincing to me is Biblical prophecy. For example, it was foretold that Babylon would be destroyed and “never inhabited again.” To this day, the site of ancient Babylon is a pile of rubble. Another example, is the mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation. It says that the governments will put people under compulsion and whoever receives this “mark” in his forehead or hand will not be able to “buy or sell.” There is currently a plan to put RFID chips in humans that will allow them to buy groceries, gas, etc without going through a checkout line. (see YouTube/mass media, it’s well documented) Anyway, I see no point going in depth into it here as most of you don’t believe in a Creator. If anyone is interested in discussing this with me maybe we could talk on the side.

You asked for one piece of evidence, that's what you got.


Yes it’s evidence but the problem is that I asked for evidence of life coming from non-life. The evidence you provided does prove that peptides can form in volcanos but as the article pointed out, it’s a long way (understatement) from peptides to a living organism.

They're not guessing/philosophizing, they're conducting experiments to show how organic processes could have formed from inorganic chemistry.


Exactly, they’re conducting experiments to show how it “could have happened.” But the result of their research experiments was miniscule. They admitted that they did not have the slightest idea how the jump to even simple amino acids, much less to protein molecules. I don’t think it’s much different than doing an experiment to prove that computers could have evolved without human influence and showing some evidence that silicon melts together when lightning strikes it.

There is a great deal of evidence to support this, have you looked at any of it?


I looked at the piece of evidence that you provided but it did not support your theory that life can come from non-life. I didn’t see any evidence for that. I only see evidence that peptides can form in volcanos.

Yes, there is a great deal of research going on in the subject, we see how cell walls could form, how RNA could have naturally formed, all kinds of interesting research.


I don’t really care about research. I’d like some evidence. I think the difference is shown in the historic fact that scientists searched for centuries to find the substance “heat.” They did a lot of research but never provided any evidence that the substance “heat” existed. Thus, I’m not aware of any scientists today that consider “heat” a substance. There is no evidence, even though a lot of research was done.

The question is, have you looked at any of it before claiming life can't come from non life?


I’m open to see more. I only looked at what you provided.

It seems you haven't looked at any of the data supporting abiogenesis.


Surely you see that I at least looked at one piece of data that supposedly supports abiogenesis, the piece that you provided.

How  can you make an informed claim when you haven't bothered to study the evidence?


I did look at the evidence you provided. I’m still willing to look at more. If you can show me one piece of evidence that demonstrates conclusively that life can come from non-life (so that I can observe it) it would certainly help your case. Along the same lines, are you willing to look at evidence for creationism?

We've done this already on a limited scale, selective breeding, genetic manipulation, Darwinian medecine.  Evolution has proved incredbily useful to us so far and will only become more important to us in the future.


It has also led people (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc) to wipe out those they viewed as “inferior” species.

Archaeoptyx


I agree that this provides an example of one of the first birds. I can accept that it lived at the time of the dinosaurs 145-150 million years ago. In fact, I accept most of what I read. However, the article also pointed out that “the feathers are an advanced form (flight feathers)” and said that this would make it necessary for feathers to have been evolving “for quite some time.” Since there is no link between this bird with “advanced” feathers and dinosaurs, I think it would be possible for it to have been a direct creation. Without the link, it’s impossible to claim lineage. There’s just an old bird.

microraptor


This too I can agree is evidence that a bird existed, possibly 120 million years ago. It also was a flying bird and thus the connection with other species is speculative. I think for a line to reptiles to be accepted as “fact” that there would have to be an example of a bird that could not fly… or a bird without flight feathers.

Anyway, thanks for sharing those examples. I have a lot to learn.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 9:22 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is this a star or not-star?

I'm not quiet sure what it's showing but I see light. All I can say is that I see light. I don't see light and not see light at the same time.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 9:28 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,

Nothing, however, will tell you what is going to happen to any single atom.


Nothing that they’ve discovered yet anyway. I would say, based on the uniformity of cause and effect in all the other physical sciences, that it’s possible that there is a cause for what they are observing but they just haven’t figured it out yet. It’s possible that it only “appears” to be uncaused because we don’t have any way of determining what exactly is going on. In other words, they’re looking at the atoms and aren’t able to figure out WHY the changes they’re observing are happening. Do you think that’s possible?

Another easily understood example is virtual particles.  Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, "empty" space is full of particles flitting in and out of existence.  We can measure this effect and even extract power from "empty" space via the Casimir effect.


I’ve heard about this one before. I don’t deny that it happens (I’m not in a position to refute their studies) but saying that it’s uncaused is theory. There could be a cause for what they are observing. There could be a reason that the particles appear to flit in and out of existence or actually do disappear into nothing and reappear again. I’m not saying I know what that possible cause is, I’m just saying it’s possible. (Againk, the main reason I think it's possible is the consistency of cause/effect in other forms of physical science). Also, quantum mechanics is a relatively new field. Someone could make a discovery that shows there is a cause. Who knows what we'll understand 200 years from now (if the planet lasts that long)? Seeing something that you can't explain and saying it's uncaused is speculation.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 9:43 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 9:43 PM on December 12, 2009 :


Nothing that they’ve discovered yet anyway. I would say, based on the uniformity of cause and effect in all the other physical sciences, that it’s possible that there is a cause for what they are observing but they just haven’t figured it out yet. It’s possible that it only “appears” to be uncaused because we don’t have any way of determining what exactly is going on. In other words, they’re looking at the atoms and aren’t able to figure out WHY the changes they’re observing are happening. Do you think that’s possible?


What you are saying is that there are hidden variables that we do not know.

Bell's Inequality has demonstrated that this is not so.


Bell's Inequality


-------
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: 9:49 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38,

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all.


Having an event just happen at a particular moment without being able to explain why does NOT mean that it’s uncaused. There may be a perfectly rational, demonstratable reason why the decay occurs the way it does but scientists today do not understand how to figure it out.

You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability


In other words, some scientists are saying ‘We see things happening that we can’t predict.’ That doesn’t show that the events are uncaused, it just shows that they are beyond our ability to predict. (Which by the way applies to just about most aspects of life).

Uncertainty (human inability to predict) does not force the conclusion that the events are uncaused.

The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account.


Basically, you’re saying that something can come from nothing. How can that be? If we imagine a box with nothing in it (no molecules, no energy, nothing), how can something come from it? This is like saying that nothing can do something.

The spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle

I think you’ll agree with me that the subatomic particle is not just appearing out of nothing. It’s appearing in a controlled environment. It could be that the particles appear from universal energy or God. The fact that they appear does not automatically mean that it is uncaused.

We can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

I agree. I think it definitely was lawful, natural and scientific. But the particles you described to support your argument are not appearing from nothing, they’re appearing inside the universe. Something appearing from “nothing” has never been observed by anyone. It’s a theory without evidence. However there is a universe of evidence of things appearing from other things.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 10:07 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2009 :
Is this a star or not-star?

I'm not quiet sure what it's showing but I see light. All I can say is that I see light. I don't see light and not see light at the same time.


The picture was not taken in visible, it is infrared.  These are very young protostars before fusion ignition has taken place.  They are collapsing and heating and ejecting their outer layers.  This phase lasts about 100 million years.

Do you believe in stellar 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: 10:10 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 10:07 PM on December 12, 2009 :

The spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle

I think you’ll agree with me that the subatomic particle is not just appearing out of nothing. It’s appearing in a controlled environment. It could be that the particles appear from universal energy or God. The fact that they appear does not automatically mean that it is uncaused.

We can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

I agree. I think it definitely was lawful, natural and scientific. But the particles you described to support your argument are not appearing from nothing, they’re appearing inside the universe. Something appearing from “nothing” has never been observed by anyone. It’s a theory without evidence. However there is a universe of evidence of things appearing from other things.


What do you think Hawking Radiation is?

Why do you think the Casimir effect exists.

Your mind is stuck in classical thinking that would not allow the computer you are using to exist.



-------
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: 10:19 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That’s called a special plea. ‘Maybe somewhere, sometime we’ll discover evidence that will refute your theory.’ Until there is solid evidence, we have to use observation. The only thing we observe is life coming from non-life.

Well, actually, you're the one making the claim without looking at all possible evidence.  You haven't looked everywhere life could form from non life, so you're making a claim based on incomplete data.  We see organic molecules forming naturally from inorganic compounds, we see all the components of life forming naturally, the logical conclusion is that since we can see all the components of life forming naturally, life itself can form naturally.

I don’t see that you have any data to support what you’re saying. I think both options are possible but the evidence (life comes from life) that we observe makes the non-living source highly impractical. It’s nothing but a theory.

A negative assertion can not be proven, it's up to whoever is making a positive assertion to support it.  We see no evidence of the supernatural, I don't have to prove it doesn't exist, you have to prove it does.  So the conclusion is life arose from non life.

If that’s the case, then is it possible that the 90%+ that you don’t know could include “evidence that there is some supernatural, eternal source for life.” Maybe it’s there but you’re not willing to examine the evidence?

There is no empirical, testable evidence for the supernatural.  In the past, whenever the supernatural has been used to explain a natural phenomenon, it has been proven wrong.  Zeus causes lightning, demons cause disease, the earth is a flat disc with a metal bowl over it.  Using the supernatural to explain natural phenomenon has NEVER been right and it's my belief it never will.

I think I have found “observational evidence.” The most convincing to me is Biblical prophecy. For example, it was foretold that Babylon would be destroyed and “never inhabited again.” To this day, the site of ancient Babylon is a pile of rubble.

And yet, I found Babylon

"What actually happened was as follows. In 539 Cyrus conquered the northern part of the Babylonian nation and then entered into the city of Babylon which surrendered without a fight. Babylon became one of the richest cities in the Persian empire. It was a center of Jewish learning (the source of the famous Babylonian Talmud). It continues to exist to this very day in Iraq. As it states in the letter of Peter in the Church Testament, ‘Greetings from your sister church in Babylon.' As for Tyre, which also did not get destroyed, as it states in the gospels, Joshua visited Tyre in one of his missionary journeys."

So if this is what you base your evidence on, you better reconsider.

Yes it’s evidence but the problem is that I asked for evidence of life coming from non-life. The evidence you provided does prove that peptides can form in volcanos but as the article pointed out, it’s a long way (understatement) from peptides to a living organism.

What is shows is that the building blocks of life can form naturally.  Take a look at all the research being done today.  Many biochemists say that we will be creating life in a lab any day now.

Exactly, they’re conducting experiments to show how it “could have happened.” But the result of their research experiments was miniscule.

Miniscule?  That was just one example of thousands that I sited.  As I said, biochemists predict that life will be created very soon, they are very close, from here:
Life?
"Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction."

Scientists are already close to showing how life can come from non life.

I don’t really care about research. I’d like some evidence.

You don't care for research???  Where do you think evidence comes from???

It has also led people (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc) to wipe out those they viewed as “inferior” species.

Don't know about Pol Pot but Hitler wiped out those he felt were inferior based on his christianity, not evolution.  And Stalin officially disavowed evolution, burned all books on evolution and imprisoned scientists who supported it.  Could you show us where Pol Pot championed the theory of evolution, show us where he used it to justify his killings?  I mean, you were wrong about Hitler and Stalin, so I would think you are wrong about Pol Pot too.

I agree that this provides an example of one of the first birds. I can accept that it lived at the time of the dinosaurs 145-150 million years ago. In fact, I accept most of what I read. However, the article also pointed out that “the feathers are an advanced form (flight feathers)” and said that this would make it necessary for feathers to have been evolving “for quite some time.” Since there is no link between this bird with “advanced” feathers and dinosaurs, I think it would be possible for it to have been a direct creation. Without the link, it’s impossible to claim lineage. There’s just an old bird.

What are you talking about, Archaeoptryx had more dinosaurian characteristics than bird characteristics.  Why would a direct creation have more characteristics of dinosaurs than birds???  And of course, we all know that dinosaurs were the first animals to have feathers, not birds.  So there are many links between this transitional between birds and dinosaurs and dinosaurs.  

This too I can agree is evidence that a bird existed, possibly 120 million years ago. It also was a flying bird and thus the connection with other species is speculative.

No, sorry, you're wrong again, microraptor  was not a bird, it was a feathered dinosaur, one with advanced feathers.  From here:
Microraptor

"Microraptor (Greek, mîkros: "small"; Latin, raptor: "one who seizes") is a genus of small, dromaeosaurid dinosaur. About two dozen well-preserved fossil specimens have been recovered from Liaoning, China. They date from the early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation (Aptian stage), 120 million years ago.
Like Archaeopteryx, Microraptor provides important evidence about the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. Microraptor had long pennaceous feathers that form wing-like surfaces on the arms and tail but also, surprisingly, on the legs."

So that kind of kills your point doesn't it, microraptor was a flying, feathered dinosaur, very similar to archaeoptryx, a dino/bird transitional.  I would say that this is excellent evidence of birds evolving from dinosaurs.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:20 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks
I don’t really care about research. I’d like some evidence.
As i've said before, you don't like Science and you're scientifically illiterate, AND you don't like Science.

Evidence without research? Is that your Bible-approved method?

truthworks
Demon
The universe began without life, then there was life in it.  Since we have no evidence that there is some supernatural, eternal source for life, the conclusion is life came from non life.
I don’t see that you have any data to support what you’re saying.
Actually, nobody says otherwise. Not even you.

You also believe that the Universe begun without life, and then there was life.

You know that by life we mean something organic. Yahweh wouldn't qualify. So, whether you're right or we are, the conclusion is the same.
I think both options are possible but the evidence (life comes from life) that we observe makes the non-living source highly impractical.
Oh, seemingly you haven't been introduced to this yet:

There's no point when you can objectively say that you have life. It's conventional. Just words.

Does that process seem unlikely? How unlikely?

A billion-to-one chance?

I'm going to quote Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins, in God Delusion, pag. 137/8
Again, as with Goldilocks, the anthropic alternative to the design hypothesis is statistical. Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers. It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now, suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. A grant-giving body would laugh at any chemist who admitted that the chance of his proposed research succeeding was only one in a hundred. But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion. And yet . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets - of which Earth, of course, is one.

This conclusion is so surprising, I'll say it again. If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in a haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find a needle because (back to the anthropic principle) any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search.

Yes, i'm also interested in Abiogenesis (which doesn't belong to this forum and you're using as a red herring).

It’s nothing but a theory.
Yes, but, as i've pointed out, you're scientifically illiterate. So chances are you don't know what you're saying.

To you a theory is a hypothesis, a fact is a 'truth', a proof is a piece of evidence.

You're clueless.

Yes, Science works with theories (which summarize and explain lots of facts, and with which you can make lots of predictions).

Science is humble. Scientists are cautious enough to recognize that everything they know is 'only a theory' that is just awaiting to be disproved and replaced.

Thus Science is exposed to criticism from even the most scientifically illiterate person.

But the 'just a theory' attack won't do the trick. Not among Science-loving people.

You're out of place.

I want to point out (thus summarizing this thread) that your 'issue with Macro-Evolution' is vacuous and meaningless. I'm sorry that your faith is against many branches of Science, but you can't group them.

'Being against the Bible' is not a scientific way to classify scientific theories.

You get it, right? Your 'issue with Macro-Evolution' is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.



-------
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: 12:35 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It’s nothing but a theory.

Yes, just like the earth orbitting the sun is nothing but a theory.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:40 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or living things being made of cells.

They tried to teach me music theory once. How silly!

When they work out some Theory of Everything finally we'll be able to say it out proud and loud:

EVERYTHING IS JUST A THEORY!



-------
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: 03:22 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 9:43 PM on December 12, 2009 :
Another easily understood example is virtual particles.  Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, "empty" space is full of particles flitting in and out of existence.  We can measure this effect and even extract power from "empty" space via the Casimir effect.


I’ve heard about this one before. I don’t deny that it happens (I’m not in a position to refute their studies) but saying that it’s uncaused is theory. There could be a cause for what they are observing. There could be a reason that the particles appear to flit in and out of existence or actually do disappear into nothing and reappear again. I’m not saying I know what that possible cause is, I’m just saying it’s possible. (Againk, the main reason I think it's possible is the consistency of cause/effect in other forms of physical science). Also, quantum mechanics is a relatively new field. Someone could make a discovery that shows there is a cause. Who knows what we'll understand 200 years from now (if the planet lasts that long)? Seeing something that you can't explain and saying it's uncaused is speculation.



So, you are perfectly happy to disregard physical evidence to protect your philosophy.

Quote from truthworks at 9:22 PM on December 12, 2009 :
Demon 38,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate the balanced tone you have in your responses. You seem more reasonable about discussing this subject than wisp.

On this planet we see life coming from life because it is teeming with life.  If life is still forming from non life somewhere on earth, the existing life could be gobbling it up before we could discover it. The fact that life itself has changed the environment might have made it impossible for those processes to repeat themselves.  and we haven't checked everywhere on the earth yet, have you personally observed what's going on in deep sea hydrothermal vents?


That’s called a special plea. ‘Maybe somewhere, sometime we’ll discover evidence that will refute your theory.’ Until there is solid evidence, we have to use observation.


I thought you didn't like special pleading?

(Edited by Apoapsis 12/13/2009 at 08:50 AM).


-------
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: 08:45 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,
Do you believe in stellar evolution?

I guess it would depend on what exactly you mean. We can see stars being "born" and "dying." But we also see that the light from distant stars billions of years old looks the same as stars closer to us. I'm not sure.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 09:13 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I only know of photons that can/do exist and don't exist in two places at the exact same time.


I exist and don’t exist in two places at the same time also. Right now I exist at this computer and I don’t exist at the North Pole.

Then the question becomes where did the life of this other life come from? If we say that it came from life, the same question applies ad infinitum.


Exactly. So there must be an eternal life source. The same line of questioning can be applied to your theory. Where did non-life come from? We could take that question to infinity as well. Eventually, I think you’d get back to the singularity. But where did that come from? Nothing? Then where did that come from? You have to believe in something eternal also.

If we then say that this other life (or however far we go with the ad infinitum statement) came from non-living matter, why impose such a statement on them and not on life on Earth?


I don’t really understand what you’re saying, could you clarify?

Especially since there is no direct evidence what-so-ever that there is other life out there. One could declare that a supreme being (i.e. God) created life ex nihilo. However, this line of reasoning is without any hard, positive evidence to support it. So while one may believe this, and quite strongly, it is not what the evidence suggests.


I do claim that God created all things out of nothing. If this “God” exists, that it would know everything, including the future. Then the hard evidence to support my theory is prophecy. Again, I don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss it in detail here.

I assume you are referring to the cell theory? Or perhaps the law of biogenesis? Either way, these are tough questions, both scientifically and theologically/philosophically. And, if we are to stick with observation, we have neither empirically observed the supernatural or other life outside of Earth. But, we have observed several possible pathways for life to have come about through non-life as seen through the various hypotheses of abiogenesis.


I agree that there are “possible pathways” that have been theorized. However, no one has observed any of these pathways ACTUALLY leading to life. In fact, the test (“evidence”) that someone showed me here was like a baby step on the beginning of a marathon. The scientists admitted that they had no idea how things progressed from that point.

I think there is tangible evidence for the “supernatural”… things foretold hundreds or thousands of years in advance.

It doesn't negate what we do know about pre-biotic Earth


I can agree with this.

Science has come a long, yet short, way of explaining the origin of life.


Which is it? I think short. They are nowhere near explaining it. All I’ve seen is peptides forming in volcanos.

And the knowledge gained increases every day and none of it lends credence to the creationism/ID movement.


Maybe because they don’t want it to.

Mine is science. Everything from biology, to astronomy, to chemistry, to geology and everything in-between and hovering above and below.


Which of these demonstrates that life comes from non-life? Have you ever observed it? I thought science was about observation?

is evidence for non-life turning into life.


They state rather emphatically in this video that the first organism must have been “simple.” What have they observed that leads them to this conclusion? My guess is the mathmatical impossibility of a complex cell forming. The video provides speculation about how a “simple” cell could have originated and I must say that this process is staggeringly complex. Again, isn’t science about observation? Has anyone ever found a “simple” cell?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 10:04 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

Thanks for your post. I agree that it’s a fascinating subject. I’m also beginning to understand WHY the origin of life is not a particularly crucial subject for the evolutionist. Thanks for being patient with me in explaining these things. I know there are probably many religious fanatics that come in here and start spewing off about Jesus and don’t really care to learn anything. Personally, I think science has a lot to offer.
I never knew that viruses can’t replicate on their own. Could they be considered as a microscopic parasite? (since they have to feed off of cellular material?)

We have made some progress in those 56 years in discovering some hints and clues how life could have arose from non-life. The key is that it most certainly occurred in steps.


But then where did God come from?  I don't know about you, but I have a problem with an enity being around forever, for infinity.

If we ask the same questions about the univserse, all of us have to believe in something eternal. From what I can see, either 1) the univserse, 2) nothing or 3) some supernatural being has always existed.

So looking at the other option, that life arose from non-life, makes more sense to me.


I may make more sense to you personally but I postulate that it’s unscientific. All of life that we can observe (what science is all about) shows that life comes from life. We have zero observations of life coming from non-life.

Life comes from life > theory supported by all living things that we observe.
Life comes from non-life > theory not supported by all living things that we observe.

Scinece doesn't know the answer to that yet.

Thanks for being honest.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 10:23 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
I think we have reached a point that it serves no purpose to continue our discussions. I don't feel that you are open to anything I say. I say this because you belittle many of the things I write and attack me persoanlly. Therefore, I am not willing to discuss these issues with you any further.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 10:29 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My guess is the mathmatical impossibility of a complex cell forming.
This time, pay attention:



Also, that about the viruses is pretty much true for prions also (those which cause the mad cow disease).

I’m also beginning to understand WHY the origin of life is not a particularly crucial subject for the evolutionist.
It might be important for many evolutionists.

It's not important for the ToE.



-------
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: 10:35 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks

I may make more sense to you personally but I postulate that it’s unscientific. All of life that we can observe (what science is all about) shows that life comes from life. We have zero observations of life coming from non-life.


Abiogenesis - science has a long ways to go before we understand how life arose on this planet.  No question about it.  I agree with you that today life comes from life.  But life itself has changed the environment of the earth over billions of years.  

It could be that God started it all.  But if he did, he left evidence showing that he started with single celled prokaryote cells.  And evolution took over from there.  (I use the pronoun 'he', but who's to say that God wasn't a 'she', or 'it'?  But I'll go along with the 'he'.)

I think that abiogenesis must include elements that we see at work in evolution, particularly it must also include some selection process working at the molecular level.  

While I firmly accept evolution, I have to say that I do find 'life' to be simply an incredible thing - truly remarkable and amazing.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:07 PM on December 13, 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.