Denial of evolution III

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    All scientific studies are under question, that is the point, entirely.

    Yes, we will. And, most likely gods will still have nothing to do with it.

    Unknown.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,524
    In science things are ALWAYS under question.
    That's part of the process.

    That's the part about "accepting" that science has done: we don't know and maybe never will.
    And science is perfectly capable of saying "Okay, that bit we DON'T know, but we're not going to make stuff up with no evidence simply so we can say we have an answer".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    The funny part is that is exactly what science is saying. You're easily swayed to believe in some impossible magic (taking some 'dirt' and making human), but not the same process that gives you everything you have today. Isn't science saying that life started from non life ( from the earth 'dirt') and making all the things we see.
     
  8. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Science only admits this only when pushed into it. If I go up to a scientist and say I believe in creation. That is not the response I get. I reason with them for a long time before they will even admit creation for the start to life is possible.

    If this is true then what do you believe from science? Is anything they say the last word. Should I not listen to anything science says, because tomorrow it may change. Does science just jump on the the current band wagon, or is there anything science knows? Also if this is true, then the own thing that is possible with science is faith, that is changing all the time. Even many religions are better than that.
     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Off Topic Alert!

    Word Salad Alert!

    This has nothing to do with evolution - what is the point of your rambling nonsense?

    why not instead answer the question I asked you?

    This has nothing to do with evolution - what is the point of your rambling nonsense?
    "The problem of no beginning" is not a problem for science - science doesnt require one

    Instead of rambling why not answer the question I asked you?

    what does this have to do with evolution?

    explain why we need to go against the existing evidence?
    why does the evidence for chemical abiogenesis merely add to the evidence we have so far?
    This has nothing to do with evolution - what is the point of your rambling nonsense?

    why not instead answer the question I asked you?

    No - you assume that science has no facts to back it up.

    we have the facts

    we have the fossils

    we have the genes

    we win
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Science doesn't state that an invisible entity waved his magic hand and created life. That is what your bible is stating.
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Using your logic that some intelligent "creator" is required, the clear answer is "Greater God."

    If we extend the question of origins further back, Greater God was created by "SGG" (Still Greater God) who was made by SSGG, etc. back thru SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSGG ... etc.

    This just to show that "God created the universe and man." is not any answer to the questions of origins.

    "God created the universe and man." just sweeps the unanswerable question under the rug for simple minded people.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2009
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,086
    Yep.
    We do. We have pretty good evidence that there was no life on this planet when it formed, and that life appeared on this planet after some time, and that the life that appeared fit the expectations one would have from the hypothesis that it emerged as a spontaneous or "self" organization of the inanimate constituents of the planet at the time.

    We also have hypothesized a mechanism adequate to explain such emerging organization, one that has already gone far in explaining the evolving properties of these organizations, and that has well fitted the likely attributes of the emerging organization as we have more recently discovered them.

    In other words, all of the evidence has long suggested that life came from non-life on this planet - and further recent investigation has substantiated, rather than contradicted, that currently best supported hypothesis.
     
  13. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Just claiming that, is not science you also need facts.

    Yes I have been trying to get you guys on to evolution, but the comments so far are on the start to life.
    What I would like to know is where does science start evolution? I am asking assuming there is some sort of life , what was it , and did evolution start from that?
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,524
    Not so. Questioning existing results is part of the process of science.

    Because science works. It provides usable results.

    Not that we know of.

    Should you eat today? Because tomorrow you'll only want more food...

    Science knows a lot of things, but it questions them just the same in case there are any new or deeper answers.

    Wrong again. Science has been shown to actually WORK. It doesn't require faith.

    That's very disingenuous of you. You know for a fact that it isn't "changing all the time". We get better answers yes, but rarely do those better answers invalidate anything that has gone before.
    Relativity didn't invalidate newton any more than a "better" recipe for bread (to continue the poor analogy) means the old recipe was wrong.

    It depends what you mean by "better". If you consider that stating the answers (all the answers) are already in the book and you're not allowed to question them or disagree is "better" then certainly religion is in top place.
    However that's not my definition.
     
  15. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Evaluation started with the primordial soup where many chemicals and complex sugars were combined to make life. So yes we started as simple slim mold type of entity.
     
  16. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    I remember is school that abiogenesis was never talked about, these types of theories come about because the old ones don't answer many of the questions. Science didn't know about DNA up until a few decades ago, DNA are the instruction for life, so who wrote those instruction or how did these instructions get into life.

    But lets get started on evolution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  17. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Ok you say mold. Why mold? and what did it live on? Was there just 1 or many? Could this first one reproduce?
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,524
    Strawman again.
    I've already said that science is a process. We learn more with the passage of time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Yes I understand that. I don't expect science to know everything. But science has made a claim that life started on it own, and evolution is a fact.
    But science doesn't really know how life started at all, they only assume , there was no creation involved. With the scientific evidence they have now, creation is just as likely as non creation. But that is not what you hear from science.
    Assumptions are not real science.
     
  20. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Well as I said it came from complex sugars carbons and other minerals. and I said slime mold type. And as for reproduction no it likely could not reproduce itself that would have come later just after cell devision came into the picture.
     
  21. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    This mold , was there just one or were there many, and if it could not reproduce, how could cell division happen, at a later time?
     
  22. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    The facts that confirm, and are explained by the Theory of Evolution are so extensive that we could never hope to cover them in an internet discussion - but all the facts you need are contained in your local library, museums, and even on TV.

    In short - read a book pal!

    a good starter for a layperson who knows nothing about science is "A Breif History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson as it gives a good explanation of how science really works, and a historical perspective of how we got to the current level of understanding in numerous fields, not just biology, and was written by someone who admits that when he set out to write it, also knew nothing about science - so its a very user friendly book in that respect


    again these questions are neatly answered by the most basic study of biology and of how Darwin originally came up with the concept of how evolution had taken place (the idea of evolution was around well before Darwin - he merely figured out how it actually worked).
    So once again I suggest that reading a book might be of use to you.

    Feel free to come back with some intelligent questions once you have educated yourself
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    well i rerad THAT book.

    why dont YOU answer post #32?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page