And now...

[This_person]

actually intelligent design throws faith into the mix. so no intelligent design is not as accurate a sceintific theory. When you incorporate as a major tennet of a theory something that cannot be proven or observed than it is no longer a scientific theory.
Saying God designed everything to evolve the way it has is a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Well, I didn't say it was scientific theory, I said it was a theory. Equally provable (until time travel becomes possible) as any other theory.

So, while it may not meet the desirable qualities for you, it is an equally proven, equally provable, equally viable theory. To date, we have seen virtually innumerable planets, and asteroids from a huge number of them. Some older, some younger than our own. Some with vastly different climates, some with relatively comparable. Nothing observable has demonstrated anything like we have here on Earth. It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding humans evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

If deciding that interference of a being makes a theory unpalatable, then certainly every staged test as a proof is equally unpalatable, because mankind had to interfere to stage the test. It would be like saying mankind created gases that caused a planet to warm up in an untimely manner - bogus, because it requires the actions of a being to interfere with the general outcome of the theory. Religion, I tell you.

Or, NOT.

You presuppose the sh!t happens for no reason, I presuppose that sh!t happens for a reason. No proof can possibly suffice either of us, thus those two supposition have equal validity.

 

[Beelzebaby666]

So, you two are married?

 

[This_person]

So, you two are married?

 

[wxtornado]

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding humans evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

 

[tommyjones]

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

a big and too

 

[This_person]

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

I think I do. Perhaps I'm wrong. The theory goes something like this:

Some cosmic/chemical magic happened that is neither explainable nor repeatable nor observable anywhere else, and thus life from lifelessness occurred. This single cell of life split, and mutated with each resulting generation. Each of these mutations continued to mutate to trillions of distinct lifeforms by evolving with each generation - those cells that best fit the environment they were in stayed alive and continued to populate and mutate. Those that did not fit died out, or moved to an area they could survive in. All of these mutated life forms came from a single, magical cell by evolving into greater and greater life forms. None of this is provable, demonstratable, nor been observed on any other planet, though we can observe millions of others directly and indirectly.

Sound about right for a simpleton like me?

I believe we're all born scientists. Any baby shows this immediately after birth -- they begin experimenting with their environment, and as they compile instances of evidence, they add that to their knowledgebase. No babies come out of the womb worshipping a god however. That has to be taught to them externally. But what is hot and what is cold, what hurts and what feels good - babies do that instinctively, because I think we are all born sicentists.

Then we grow up, we're filled with nonsense and told to "believe because if you don't, something bad will happen to you" and our critical thinking skills go down the sh!tter. Next thing you know, it's okay to fly airplanes into someone's building.

This is an interesting take on things. While I think we're all certainly born with an innate desire to learn of our surroundings, I'm not sure that makes us scientists. I don't think the rules of scientific experimentation and discovery are part of our learning innately. But, I agree that we seek information about our surroundings.

I was never told "if you don't, something bad will happen to you", nor has my critical thinking ability gone down the ####ter. I believe despite the carrot and stick arguments, not because of them (as you've been told many many times before).

As has been repeatedly pointed out in this forum, those willing to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up (taking others with them) are by far the minutest minority, not the norm, so they kind of make no point whatsoever to your argument.

I know if I'd been told that putting leaches on me to correct my fever was a good thing to do, I'd have smacked that scientist in the face - so nonesense knows no bounds of science or religion.

 

[tommyjones]

I think I do. Perhaps I'm wrong. The theory goes something like this:

Some cosmic/chemical magic happened that is neither explainable nor repeatable nor observable anywhere else, and thus life from lifelessness occurred. This single cell of life split, and mutated with each resulting generation. Each of these mutations continued to mutate to trillions of distinct lifeforms by evolving with each generation - those cells that best fit the environment they were in stayed alive and continued to populate and mutate. Those that did not fit died out, or moved to an area they could survive in. All of these mutated life forms came from a single, magical cell by evolving into greater and greater life forms. None of this is provable, demonstratable, nor been observed on any other planet, though we can observe millions of others directly and indirectly.

Sound about right for a simpleton like me?.

actually, you are combining a theory on the origins of life (seems most like the 'primordial oooz theory') with evolution.

 

[This_person]

actually, you are combining a theory on the origins of life (seems most like the 'primordial oooz theory') with evolution.

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding the origin of life nor human's evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

 

[tommyjones]

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from unless we observe it occur on another similar planet (and, then, all we've observed is potentially Genesis, Part II), so there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding the origin of life nor human's evolution. We can equally establish no facts other than conjecture, we can equally establish no observable proof.

you really have a hard time with scientific method dont you.

their is no reason the evolution of humans couldn't be proven without the establishement of where life came from.

 

[wxtornado]

Okay, so now that the hair is split, I'll reword:

It's physically impossible to prove where life came from........

This is my point. Who claims to do this? What you are talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution makes no claims of know where life comes from, contrary to what some theists seem to think.

 

[wxtornado]

you really have a hard time with scientific method dont you.

their is no reason the evolution of humans couldn't be proven without the establishement of where life came from.

I honeslty think they do this stuff on purpose man, I really do.

 

[This_person]

you really have a hard time with scientific method dont you.

their is no reason the evolution of humans couldn't be proven without the establishement of where life came from.

I don't think I do. However, re-read my change. I split evolution and origins of life.

So, go ahead and prove evolution - show me the common ancestor.

 

[This_person]

This is my point. Who claims to do this? What you are talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution makes no claims of know where life comes from, contrary to what some theists seem to think.

True, we theists lump the theories together, much like atheists lump religious concepts together. Good point.

So you agree, there is no proof as to where life comes from?

So, when you go back to the common ancestor (which is also not proven, demonstratable, nor repeatable), where did that come from? Without a source, it really is a meaningless theory insofar as it doesn't really show any difference from intelligent design without a source of life.

 

[This_person]

I honeslty think they do this stuff on purpose man, I really do.

Attempt to answer your questions? Yes, we do.

 

[tommyjones]

I don't think I do. However, re-read my change. I split evolution and origins of life.

So, go ahead and prove evolution - show me the common ancestor.

If all it takes is finding the missing link then you have to admit evolution is a provable and observable phenomenon.

not as you stated earlier:

there's nothing we can prove on Earth regarding the origin of life nor human's evolution

 

[wxtornado]

So, when you go back to the common ancestor (which is also not proven, demonstratable, nor repeatable), where did that come from? Without a source, it really is a meaningless theory insofar as it doesn't really show any difference from intelligent design without a source of life.

The big diference between theists and atheists can really be summed up simply in that we disagree whether or not existence is driven by an overriding conciousness. Theists make the leap that there must be some higher thinking entity, whereas atheists see no reason to take this extra step; indeed, where the theist somehow sees taking this extra step as clarifying things, the atheist sees it as merely muddying them, and doing it without being able to demonstrate what it is they are talking about.

 

[This_person]

If all it takes is finding the missing link then you have to admit evolution is a provable and observable phenomenon.

not as you stated earlier:

Well, if it's ever found, we can talk about whether or not it was provable.

But, realize, IF it ever is, the question then will be "yeah, but what about before that?" until we get to the origins of life. Separating the two theories is quite meaningless.

 

[This_person]

The big diference between theists and atheists can really be summed up simply in that we disagree whether or not existence is driven by an overriding conciousness. Theists make the leap that there must be some higher thinking entity, whereas atheists see no reason to take this extra step; indeed, where the theist somehow sees taking this extra step as clarifying things, the atheist sees it as merely muddying them, and doing it without being able to demonstrate what it is they are talking about.

I agree, they are two equally unprovable theories about the meaning of life, both which unnecessarily dismiss the other, and the potential (if not probable) ties between them.

 

[wxtornado]

I agree, they are two equally unprovable theories about the meaning of life, both which unnecessarily dismiss the other, and the potential (if not probable) ties between them.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I "think they do this stuff on purpose". That, or you have no idea what you're arguing against, and sometimes I can't tell the difference to be honest. Seriously, I challenge you to tell me where any biologist, or anyone for that matter, claims that evolution is a theory about the "meaning of life". Where do you get this stuff?

 

[This_person]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I "think they do this stuff on purpose". That, or you have no idea what you're arguing against, and sometimes I can't tell the difference to be honest. Seriously, I challenge you to tell me where any biologist, or anyone for that matter, claims that evolution is a theory about the "meaning of life". Where do you get this stuff?

I guess I didn't make myself clear repeatedly before. Atheists believe sh!t happens, theists believe sh!t happens for a reason. I thought you pretty much were saying the same thing when you said:

The big diference between theists and atheists can really be summed up simply in that we disagree whether or not existence is driven by an overriding conciousness.

I think the word "driven" there is what I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the overriding consciousness provided a meaning to life, where the atheist merely sees the cosmically magic/chemical reaction of life. (edit: in other words, I'm presuming that atheists are stating there is no meaning to life, as their life is merely a mutation of a cosmically magic reaction to rocks, after many generations)