Denial of evolution III

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    Turtles all the way down?
    Must have been kind of difficult for it during the big bang.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    links to sources please.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Hay,

    Doesn't know yet.

    You are simply stuck in time. You want all the answers even where there are none yet. This does not make evolution wrong, because there is not evidence against evolution only gaps in the evidence for.

    Those gaps are closing everyday and will continue to close. If we find evidence against evolution then the theory will be re-examined, depending on what that evidence is.

    The problem is that you are claiming creation out of nothing, just as we are, yet you aren't offering your evidence of where or what that source is.

    I have a question for you.

    Do you believe that life was created by a god ? and if so, is that life special to earth only, IOW, based on a religious belief for our origin.

    If so, please let us know what god it is. So that we can then examine the evidence of your claim.

    Otherwise, you and I will have to wait until we have an answer. It may not happen in our lifetimes. But then again, just think of all that we have discovered in the past 200 years.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
     
  8. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.

    That is:

    They accept the 'simplest' explanation....

    In other words I believe anything that is part of a theory due to the above method is untrustworthy- that includes a lot of things now...

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2009
  10. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    this isnt strictly correct.

    Point 1.

    Goddidit is the simplest answer of all time - and yet answers nothing.

    Point 2.
    sometimes the simplest, most economical explanation is mindbendingly complex and takes years of study to grasp.

    Point 3.
    The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them - but how many religious fanatics do you know that dont know the first thing about evolution? (try "all of them" if you're stuck for an answer)
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    SG in case you didnt know, RNA is capable of self-catalysis.

    add to that the fact that it can encode proteins and we have a pretty good candidate for an abiotic self replicating pre-cellular precursor of life (one of them anyway).

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090108/full/news.2009.5.html

    On an altogether different note.

    what are the chances of a WORTHY adversary in this forum instead of the total lightweights we've seen contributing so far? (sorry Hay_you and john99, no offence - but you are)

    You know - a creationist who actually has the remotest clue about biology and evolution and might be able to ask some intelligent and searching questions instead of ramble inanely???


    Too much to ask???
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2009
  13. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Then how did something like George Clooney evolve? There's no reason to assume that he should evolve and someone like Tom Arnold shouldn't. It's absurd what evolutionists are saying. It might even be racist.
     
  14. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    No need to bring religion in it. I have just brought up a point irrespective of my religious convictions. I find the idea of accepting the simplest explanation to be not provable by the scientific method- stick to science.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    No answers - or thread relevance - therein. Pass.
    You have not.
    You err in the ascription.
    That's irrelevant. Nothing is provable - in the modern sense - by the scientific method.
    I question that. Over the years I have seen so many intelligent and educated people have so much trouble with them I have come to view them as actually difficult, counter-intuitive, and easily confused or mistaken by most people.

    Sure they seem obvious once comprehended and familiar: so does the concept of a "limit", or "probability", or "marginal rate", or "entropy".
     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I believe I did say that they were questions on which a further argument would be made, provided you gave answers to them.

    I can't do anything about your assumption that one can not argue a case from a different standpoint.


    I don't understand how that little portion had said anything significant for which you commented on separately as clearly the next sentence was required to have any meaning for the sentence you commented upon.

    Lol... Yet science does use the word 'provable'- and since we are discussing in the science forum I would hope that the word be understood under the scientific context and that you stop assuming that if someone is not an atheist that they don't understand this..

    So now if you stop acting smart and give a response to the concern, that would be better.

    Science takes the most simple explanation- on what basis? There have already been revisions to scientific understanding that were based upon 'simple explanations'- so to continue using that as a basis in accepting something is quite unscientific. To accept a simple explanation and make it part of a theory is to leave all the real scrutiny a theory faces to be almost irrelevant, it actually insults the work that is put into supporting a theory, as something as 'simple explanation' can be included in the same theory without any real scientific backing but simply on the stupid assumption that the most simplest explanation is to be accepted 'just cuz'.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    It doesn't.

    There is nothing "simple" about quantum electrodynamics, for example.
     
  18. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    No reason talking to you then because you either clearly lack knowledge of what I'm talking about or you are purposefully dodging the question..... so lets give someone else the chance to have a crack at it.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    Neither. You insist on asking questions based on mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches, and then refuse to accept the answers, is all.

    Am I supposed to agree with you that a phrase like "the idea of accepting the simplest explanation {is} not provable by the scientific method" somehow makes sense, or applies to anything any actual scientist does or argues or believes?
     
  20. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Actually I'm quite open to accepting answers, a more recent example is the thread re-EVOL-ve in the Religion section

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'. Perhaps you should read Occam's Razor- as an example

    I contend:
    To assume that the simplest explanation is correct is giving an unproven interpretation to hard work that is put in a theory.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    Maybe, but in this world it doesn't.

    Because they don't. They don't, say, accept deity interventions, miracles, wildly improbable coincidences, violations of the 2nd Law or other basic laws, and so forth - no matter how simple such explanations would be.
     
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Lol..... no reason to bring supernatural explanations into the discussion.... there can be complex natural explanations too.... you don't have to make this an atheist vs theist discussion...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    Or perhaps it would be better if you realised the truth.
    Science uses (not takes) the simplest explanation that fits the observations.
    In other words it (at no point point) says ""this is simpler so on that basis we'll take it".
    And even when the simpler explanation is used (i.e. not "taken", not set in stone) science does not stop looking at alternatives.
    Occam isn't a fixed rule and isn't always followed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page