This_person
Well-Known Member
WxTornado? Xaquin? Somebody?This is saying pretty much exactly what I'm saying. What about what I'm saying don't you understand? What about what I'm saying is
not
how
evolution
works?
A Question For My Evolutionist Friends
- Thread starter Marie
- Start date
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
The macro-versus-micro argument is a straw man because "species" is merely a human-created language classification like "physical laws." Boundaries between species are fuzzy and arbitrary, and evolution between species is no different than evolution within species.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That doesn't answer the point, though.
Show me a repeatable, peer reviewed test of protoplasm "evolving" into plant, insect, and animal all, as it had to have happened that way in the current view of evolution. Until there's been a test, repeatable and peer reviewed - as demanded of ID - that shows this, it doesn't meet the same definition of science that ID is held to. It's just a belief system, like a religion.
backagain39
New Member
Evolution makes sense to me since the whole universe is about change, everything changes, stars, planets, people, climate, etc.......what I wonder about is the soul.......where does that come into play?
So Where Did Matter Come from?
So if things evolved, where did the matter come from thats the subtance of all things? The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth but it also says he created the earth. In order to have primordial soup you need the matter to start with where does Darwinian Evolution say matter came from?
So if things evolved, where did the matter come from thats the subtance of all things? The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth but it also says he created the earth. In order to have primordial soup you need the matter to start with where does Darwinian Evolution say matter came from?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Substitute "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" with "science in general"
The fact is, each is a leap of faith. The difference is, when one believes in a Supreme Being they merely shift the faith one more step out.
What I mean by this is - think in general terms. The theist believes that God created the heavens and the Earth, and set everything up with His infinite wisdom. The source of all the people are basically Adam and Eve, the source of all the stuff if God made it. The problem with this is the question of where God came from, how long has He been around, etc., etc. It moves "the source" of everything to an entirely different plain of existence.
The atheist believes that all of life spontaneously emerged from lifeless matter in the ocean, the ocean emerged when the earth cooled down after being formed, the earth formed from cosmic dust, which originated after the big bang. Neglecting the problems with evolution, with life originating from lifeless matter, etc., etc., the problem with this theory is the same as with God - where did the stuff come from for the big bang to occur? How/why did it occur when it did?
There's really no difference in either theory when it comes to any ability to answer questions - all sides take their position on faith, because no one knows nor can ever know during our lifetimes. We theists believe we'll find out when our souls are brought to heaven. Atheists believe they'll die and return to earth from which they came, sorta, never knowing.
Xaquin, you attack Marie for asking a question without providing any substance to your answer. A young man raised in a Christian home should know better.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
This_person, your post ignores the many people who believe in God but still accept evolution and abiogenesis. Some of these are Christians and some of these are scientists, and some are both. Neither evolution nor abiogenesis are inherently atheistic. I have been told repeatedly by many Christians that reading Genesis literally is not only bad science but also bad theology.
And your description of "theory" is not the one used in the scientific community. Here's a more accurate description:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
And your description of "theory" is not the one used in the scientific community. Here's a more accurate description:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
This_person
Well-Known Member
I don't ignore them at all. They're faithful on two fronts, that's all.
The point wasn't "who's right", the point is "we're all equally unproven in our assessment".
I don't know who's right. You don't know who's right. I actually don't find it difficult to reconcile the two thoughts (abiogenesis and Genesis), because Genesis doesn't say exactly HOW God did it, just that he did. All science has done is point to HOW things may have been accomplished, and all Genesis states is WHO made it happen, and part of the why it happened.
My point was towards those that choose to believe that theirs is the one and only way, and anyone else is wrong and stupid for not believing their way. None of us has a tiny shred of proof, and each fails their own litmus test for what they seek from the other as proof. We all have faith in what we believe, and really shouldn't judge the others' belief until we can prove our own. As none of us will ever be able to do that, we should probably just respect the others' points of view. Equally.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Remember that belief is the holding of a proposition independent of supporting or contrary evidence. Supporting evidence doesn't necessarily make a proposition true, but it increases the proposition's likelihood of being true. There is simply no evidence for your "why." And without that evidence, there is no reason to give the "why" any serious consideration. At the risk of grammatical clumsiness, why believe in a "why" in the first place? Why the desire to assume that natural events have consciously created purposes?
That sounds benign enough in principle. But it doesn't take into account certain religious doctrines and secular beliefs. The idea that someone who doesn't hold a certain belief deserves to suffer for eternity is not worthy of respect. The idea that individual instances of others' suffering are divine punishments is not worthy of respect. I include Rosie O'Donnell's hateful belief that cancer is caused by lying. Those are not so much beliefs as they are fighting words. Beliefs that cause people to harm others are not worthy of respect either.
This_person
Well-Known Member
As is the proposition that life came from lifelessness. There's absolutely zero supporting evidence, and a preponderance of contrary evidence (in the lack of it happening any where else that we can see since, and the lack of observation that it is happening now or at any time since it began life on this planet). Thus, the evidence is equal. By what you said, there should be no reason to give abiogenesis any serious consideration.
But, of course, that makes no sense. Learning, research into the hows is valid, and important, and useful.
Why look into the "why"? To ensure we understand meaning, purpose. Perhaps - mind you this is not my belief but must also be considered as an equal hypothetical - we're just pets, pawns for amusement (as discussed in the near end of the movie monologue by Pacino in "Devil's Advocate") for a sadistic monster of a god. Wouldn't you like to know that? Perhaps we're supposed to DO something, BE something - a great experiment. Perhaps God was just killing a part of eternity to see what happens when you create a universe for ungrateful beings. Perhaps the LDS church is right and we all get to be sorta-gods of our own planets, and we need to learn how to do it right? Why (if there is one) is always as important as how.
While I despise the things those people say, I would fight to the death their right to say them (and believe them).
The idea that everything about me is transient, and that I'm no more use to the world than worm food for the later generations is not worthy of respect. That my life is the result of a series of improbable "upgrading" mutations is not worthy of respect.
But, I respect that people believe that, regardless of evidence to the contrary. And, I fully expect that people should respect the right of everyone to believe as they will up to the point they have to suffer significantly for someone else's beliefs. When a baby can be killed because it's just a clump of cells, that's taking it too far. When a doctor gets blown up because he kills those babies, that's taking it too far. When words get redefined to fit today's alteration of sexuality, that's taking it too far. When planes get flown into buildings to kill people, that's taking it too far.
See where I'm going with this?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Evidence supporting the likelihood of abiogenesis continues to accumulate:
New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
The existence of externally created meaning and purpose is a matter of empirical inquiry and not a matter of belief or unfounded certainty.
Those are possibilities, but without evidence for any of them, they are nothing more than speculation.
The beliefs I'm describing amount to intrusions of people's personal boundaries, attempts to define people or define their worth. That seems wrong to me, but I'm not exactly sure how. If you had a loved one who died of cancer, or if you had cancer yourself, wouldn't you want to refute O'Donnell's hateful stance?
That is your interpretation experience of the scientific findings, and other people have different ones. The findings don't automatically lead to that interpretation. Science doesn't impose a meaning and purpose on nature or on people's lives the way that many religions do. The result is that people can create their own meanings and purposes for their lives. While that involves a great deal of responsibility, it also involves a great deal of freedom. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live under a meaning or purpose created for him. You define your use to the world - no one can define that for you and it's wrong for someone else to even try.
That is not the logical conclusion of science - one can be pro-life and still respect science, and one can be pro-choice and believe in gods.
Are you saying that behavior is more important than belief? While that's an excellent point, that shouldn't excuse behavior that is motivated by belief.
This_person
Well-Known Member
And, the opening paragraph says it all
Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago.
In other words, this further proves my point that no one knows, and any claims to the contrary are inaccurate. No one knows, and the theories abound. Therefore, no one is any more correct than anyone else. Also, to judge probabilities one must have the method of occurance to judge the probability of occurance. Without the method, everything is equally probable (or, inprobable, depending upon your perspective).
Every question regarding the origins of life, and the origins of the universe, are equally founded, as we don't know, and can't test.
Exactly, every supposition about the origins of life and of the universe are pure speculation, nothing more. All speculation is truely equal when we don't have the "how" already - because we just don't know. None of us knows, and we all don't know equally.
Of course I would, and more than just that statement of hers. I find her a despicable person, with despicable beliefs all around. I was not in any way saying I agree with her - I don't! I was saying she has the right to her beliefs, as I do mine. She can say all she wants about my beliefs, and that says something about what type of person she is. But, that doesn't stop her from having the right to believe that way. Until she wants to use my tax dollars to fund research into stopping lying to stop cancer, or to de-fund serious cancer research, her beliefs mean nothing to me.
I agree it's wrong. So, I don't want it taught to my kids in school - that the soul is merely an illusion of my belief system. I don't want it taught to my kids that they were a cosmic mutation of chemicals gone wild over eons of time. I don't believe that, there's no proof of that, there's no science to that (science as defined by the same standards by which ID was rejected). This is where I say that one's belief system can hurt others - create an authoritative atmosphere that teaches as fact something with no more basis than Genesis, or ID. Leave that up to the voters of the school district, not the Supreme Court.
I am speaking in generalities. As a rule of thumb, if one is among the 95% of the world that believes in a Supreme Being of one kind or another, one finds killing babies "bad". When it is taught that killing that baby is just a "choice" that one of the parents (but not the other) has, and it's indoctrinated into the society, that standard lowers (another example of a belief system that hurts others).
I was actually saying that beliefs are more important than behaviors up to the point of hurting others. Then the behavior needs to be controlled by the community's standards.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Of course no one knows. The problem is that religious beliefs claim to know. Scientific theories makes no such claims to absolute knowledge.
If enough people believe in her horse puckey, that could happen. Not that they would believe it coming from her, but that they would believe it at all.
I know of no one who is proposing teaching that to children, at least as an absolute certainty. I agree that we don't know if the soul exists, and that it's possible that it exists. My point is that the likelihood of it existing is remote since there is nothing that would indicate its existence, and that the religious certainty of its existence is unfounded.
If it were proven that life arose through natural causes, would you still have that objection? I would turn it around on me as well - if it were proven that supernatural life exists, I wouldn't object if that was taught to my children. Although people claim to reach theological conclusions from science, the theories themselves do not involve theology and are not intended as theology. Your core objection to evolution and abiogenesis is that they conflict with a certain theological stance. Whatever the origin of life and humankind, theological stances are irrelevant to these.
That's not quite accurate. Adherents.org's estimate is between 87 and 92 percent, and it includes a more general belief in a "higher power." That would include people who don't define their powers as personal gods. We should not assume that such people really believe in the Christian god in another form. Also, there are many god-believers who oppose abortion on grounds other than life - fundamentalists generally oppose it because they believe that all non-procreative sex is wrong. So we cannot assume that god-belief is mostly the cause of opposition to abortion. If one is going to oppose abortion, that should be irrelevant to whether gods exist. From your post, I suspect that if it were proven that there was no supernatural life, you would still oppose abortion, and if so I can respect that position. The issue is that too many believers use "Because my god said so" as their rationale, not just for abortion but also for contraception and many other issues.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
We claim to have our beliefs, and we believe our beliefs are correct, just like scientists do. When people teach evolution as fact, when it's not, that's a problem. When people teach religion as fact, that is also a problem. I have only been exposed to people saying that they believe religion on faith, not proof. And, I have only been exposed to evolutionists claiming evolution is fact, not a guess.
Agreed
But, it doesn't mean they're not allowed their belief.
When one is taught evolution in school, the soul is left out, because religious beliefs are left out. This teaches that there is a distinction between human evolution and human creation, and that creation must not be as viable a theory as evolution. Because evolution is no more proven than creation, it is not more viable. This is where the problem lies. Prohibiting one fanciful thought for another fanciful thought makes one authoritative, and the other mythology. They're both mythology.
Then we agree. When one way is proven, proven mind you, over the other, that's the belief we'll each stick to.
No, my core objection to evolution and abiogenesis is that they do not meet the standards by which they judge competing theories. Again, I've yet to see any tests, repeated, peer reviewed that demonstrate life coming from lifelessness. That demonstrate a tree, a fish, a bat, and a mosquito as being able to come from a single celled source. That demonstrates how a single cell of life can have enough genetic diversity to sustain a single species, let alone all life today, and the 100 times life today that's existed before today. My arguments against the science are based in the standards of the science
Opinion, and only opinion. Again, if any, ANY of the religions are correct, those stances would be extremely relevant.
Okay, I'll spot you 7 more percent and say 80% instead of 95% (I was rounding
) though I don't see the difference of significance between 87, 92, and 95 in this case. Either way, I wasn't suggesting they are all Christians (thus the "Supreme Being in one form or another" phrase). And, I also agree that the religious reasons against abortion are not all the same. However, my point is still just as valid. When one believes in the sacredness of individual life, one will not accept abortion as a viable "choice". I would still be against it for that reason - the individual life is sacred. The lesser the religious background, the more likely (not certainty, but more likely) one will accept abortion as a choice. It was one of several in a list, and I stand by the stereotype. It's not a black and white, specific rule, but a generality, and it is true as such.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Whatever the community standard dictates
It's been answered, but not accurately.
What, specifically, makes teaching of evolution scientific differently than ID? What test has been performed, repeated, and peer reviewed regarding HUMAN evolution that makes it more valid? I've asked, and never been answered. I've been directed to somebody thinking they noticed a color change in some moths, with no repeat nor explaination, and that's about it.
Once again, whichever one the community standard desires. No, I don't want a religion taught, that's why I'm against evolution being taught as a fact. It's not.
What makes them different? What scientific standard that rejects ID has evolution, or abiogenesis, met?
You want a religous creation belief taught? Then do it in a Theology class. Once again, which Theolgical creation event do you want taught?
quote]
There is only one 6 literal days<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<o
Evolution is a religion it doesn’t meat the criteria for science not even junk science. So if you don’t want religion taught don’t teach either.<o
I took this from someone’s website that supported evolution and in the process they defeated their own argument.<o
<o
"Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven." <o
<o
This is true it’s a bad theory that’s been proven wrong many times over the years so they keep changing it. It’s also had a lot of forgeries and deception out and out lies that latter came to surface where the liar admitted his hoax. <o
<o
"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation," <o
Ok we have yet to ever witness anything evolve. Or seen an increase to the DNA all we have seen is mutation and a loss of genetic data. <o
<o
<o
"Experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." <o
<o
Very little reason goes into grasping at straws and when true science points to absurdities it gets swept under the rug. He have no confirmation of anything that evolved no transitory fossils exists. <o
<o
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts." <o
We have no facts only theories that keep getting disproved. <o
<o
'A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. <o
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakable evidence."<o
<o
Again we have NO facts.<o
<o
<o
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. <o
<o
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?<o
<o
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? <o
<o
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? <o
<o
Xaquin44
New Member
ah marie
reading, but not understanding as per your m.o.
just give it a rest.
Evolution has been taught in science classes because it is a testable theory.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
ever tried to test for god?
go on. give me the science regarding god. why should it be taught in science class?
edit: and we do have facts. not all of them, but they are there. Rome was not built in a day.
nor was it built in 6.
reading, but not understanding as per your m.o.
just give it a rest.
Evolution has been taught in science classes because it is a testable theory.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
ever tried to test for god?
go on. give me the science regarding god. why should it be taught in science class?
edit: and we do have facts. not all of them, but they are there. Rome was not built in a day.
nor was it built in 6.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Ah, Xaquin, reading but not comprehending, per your MO
Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
Let me rephrase - we don't know what the hell happened or why, but - by God (no pun intended) it must mean evolution is right!Again, this doesn't answer any of the questions I've asked regarding evolution. If they could take any of the other strains before the 20,000th generation, and give them the unknown variable, and have the same result, and KNOW WHY, there would be a tiny bit of a glimmer of proof of evolution of a single species. This is still meaningless to humans, and to evolution on a large scale wherein this strain could have daughter species that are plants, animals, insects, etc., etc.
When you offer me tests that prove my questions regarding evolution as it applies to humans you'll have met the criteria for evolution to be taught in a science class. Until then, teach bacteria evolution, and guesses about moth colors, but keep evolution off of humans, as it doesn't apply yet (with any kind of proof, just conjecture and mythology)
Theres nothing that I can say that your open to listening to as your just like I used to be that said though ill reply and drop it. you might find some of these vidoes interesting.
Actually I can give you proven test for God, People that hate God that get saved they change everything they once love they now hate and Every thing they hated they now love. I met a guy a few months ago that was a staunch atheist. He went to see his professor not knowing he was a Christian and the guy had a poster on his door about the 3 literal days of creation. It pissed the kid off so bad he got a bible and started reading it so he could poke holes in it. He got saved from it and now he’s on fire for god and gives lectures on creationism. He also lives like a Christian and shares his faith regularly. You see it time and time again that someone that hated God gets saved and lives the rest of their life serving him and they feel compelled to tell! Heres a few just off the top of my head<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>Lee Strobel: Chagico Tribune Investigative reporter Atheist turned christian trying to disprove it.<o
></o>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfb_UCnZvsk&feature=related<o
></o><o
></o>John Clayton Atheist found God through science<o
></o>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8810338236054922062<o
></o><o
></o>Ray Comfort Atheist turned Evangelist
Kirk Camerman Actor Atheist turned Evangelist
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/evolution.shtml (Watch Evolution)
<o
></o>Alistar McGrath -- Atheist turned Christian<o
></o>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBRKY8Qx9YQ<o
></o><o
></o>http://www.ex-atheist.com/index.html<o
></o><o
></o>There’s real evidence and its a lot of people and the changes that took place they would never want or desire to change on there own. Something more subjective and not as frequent is the power of prayer. Where God delivers someone. A pastor John Hagee (no endorsement) had a gunman come in and less than 8 feet away fire shots at him that the police couldn’t figure out why he wasn’t hit. Less than 8 feet away is really hard to miss!<o
></o>Plus I ve seen God change me, putting desires on my heart that are opsitte of my personality. Leading me to things I would have never done and wanted Nothing to do with before I got saved. <o
></o><o
></o>