Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Life, by definition, creates order out of disorder. So do a lot of physical processes. (Think crystals, or the Giant's Causeway, or snowflakes, or a hurricane.)
    Nope. It could be nothing more than a few molecules. Even today we know of molecules that can self-replicate given the right conditions. And the offspring - another one of those molecules.
    Nope. A dog, for example, is more sophisticated than a molecule.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Hmm. What blocks UV? Water. Clouds. Rocks. Ice. There were trillions of places on early Earth that got light but not much UV.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    How was the Citric Acid Cycle controlled by a form of primitive life, that we will have to pretend existed for the moment, before it had the needed enzymes to control it?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    How can nature form crystals if there's no one to melt the rock, dissolve the salt or freeze the water?
  8. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    It is apparently possible to get a Sunburn from UV Radiation even on a cloudy day.

    And UV Radiation can also be reflected under Rocks as well. Checking on that one.

    Life in a place that does not get much light is going to have to be even more efficient at using it’s scarce resources.

    How is that ability developed?

    And how would life exist before it is developed?
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Nature can form Crystals. That is Empirical Science.

    Any Empirical proof that Crystals can create Life?
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You seem to revel in stupid obtuse statements.
    Just think for a change, and understand if you are honest that is, that as already stated, there would be plenty of places to be sheltered from radiation, as well as atmospheric conditions, not to mention the depths of the seas and Oceans.....something again, like all crusading god botherers, you seem to have missed.
  11. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Dogs are an excellent example of how genetic traits can be lost entirely in branches over time, making each branch less adaptable in the future and less able to survive. Genetic Dilution.
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Less light equals less available energy available to create life with and increases the need for efficiency with processing the little light available. Requiring more specified and exact design perimeters.

    How would less energy from the Sun and Zero Energy from Lightning, under the Sea, make the spontaneous generation of life more likely?

    There would be no stable “Primordial Soup” under the Ocean, so we would have to throw that theory out.

    You all OK with that?
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Still playing the dumb obtuse game? Still trying to insert your god of the gaps nonsense?
    I have posted plenty of that before, but I'll play your game anyway...... think life got,in deep-sea hydrothermal%

    Now answer me a couple of questions if you are game enough.
    Why do you chose some unscientific ID nonsense, over evidenced based science?
    Why is you god better then any other spaghetti monster, or Zeus, or Thor, or Athena, or Jupiter, or Neptune?
    Why do you need to accept some unscientific myth to avoid and/or diminish the fact of the finality of death?
    Why does maintaining that warm inner glow it gives you, hide you from the realities of science and the scientific world?

    And finally, let's play another game....You give up all scientifically derived benefits and facts for the next six months, and I'll give up and/or reject and have nothing to do with any thing remotely religious, and see where we both end up in six months time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? Dogs are an example of IMPROVED genetic traits, each adapted for their environment. (Needless to say, this is forced selection, not natural selection.)
    Wolves are terrible at hunting badgers; badgers can flee down holes and into logs. Daschsunds are much better at hunting them.
    Wolves aren't good at hunting on the water since they're not great swimmers. Gordon setters are excellent swimmers.
    Wolves have a great, but not excellent, sense of smell. Bloodhounds are MUCH better at tracking game - and people.

    All of them are therefore improved for their purpose.
    Therefore Nature can form life. Equally empirical science.
    Of course. Clouds block most UV. They do not block all UV.
    Why do you assume resources would be scarce? Or that early life would need light to survive?
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Here Seti, let's see how you and your obvious overlords explain away the science again......

  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Here again Seti an excellent video explaining the process of how Abiogenesis probably took place......

    Isn't that better then Jesus, Thor, Neptune, Ra and such myths?
  17. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Science was originally historically founded as a method to understand God’s Creation. You know this.

    And some Scientists still approach it in this same way, even today.

    There is no problem having both. No problem when it was developed by theists, no problem now.

    But today Theists are ridiculed, belittled, slandered, can loose their jobs, and even lose their careers.

    Today, Science is controlled by the Religion of Naturalism, a belief system which is unproven and is even unprovable. And some Scientists want to use Science to push the minority Religion of Naturalism down the throats of all children.

    Atheistic Brainwashing in the form of Evolution is going on today in our Schools.

    I suppose you are happy about that, perhaps?

    Theism created the Scientific Method, and theists have no real need to reject it today.

    Neither do I reject Empirical Science.

    What do you think would happen in the Scientific Community if something was dug up that really blew Darwinism to bits?

    Would it be accepted or suppressed?

    You would have to say accepted, right?

    I think it would be interpreted away and suppressed.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Lots of people would get Nobel prizes, and our understanding will change - as it has from the beginning. Every single time.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, we were pretty ignorant know earth centered solar system, etc etc
    Some scientists still believe yes....and some god botherers also accept Darwinism, so?
    Of course not. My problem is the crusading Christians and IDers coming to a science forum dissing science.
    Isn't that what you are doing? ridiculing, belittling science?
    I've asked you before...why come here preaching? I don't go to a church preaching science and Abiogenesis.
    Fucking nonsense! Just for your information by the way...My Son went to a Catholic school, as I did, because I insisted on it, due to the far better discipline and overall learning as compared to state schools. His Mother, my Wife is a devout and true Christian, whom I drive to church and singing practise when required. My Son now, without any pushing from me, is interested in science rather then myth.
    Bullshit again.
    It wont happen. Why deal in what if's and very highly unlikely circumstances.
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    My comments

    So are mistakes and errors. But not everything is a mistake or an error, let alone a fraud, which suggests knowing misrepresentation.

    Yes, especially when one's career is dependent on pleasing others. Think hiring and tenure decisions.

    Ok. I'd prefer to be less cynical and think that many scientists are motivated as well by a desire to know.

    Sometimes. It doesn't usually rise to the level of a conspiracy though (though that does happen). It's typically more along the lines of group-think.

    That's implicit in how human knowledge grows. It's kind of a lift-yourself-by-your-bootstraps deal. Scientists operate within their historical context, in terms of ideas, concepts and methods of inquiry that they inherit and absorb during their educations. That's as true today as it was in the 1700s or before.

    Well, methodological naturalism is part of the definition of science I guess. Seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. We can't be sure that nature (in the sense of what can be observed with the senses and inferred from that) is coextensive with reality in its entirety. I personally suspect that there's good reason to suspect that it isn't. But... if natural phenomena are all we do know and can know at this point, then it's all we have to work with. (See the remarks on raising one's self by one's bootstraps above.)

    Humans learn more and more. And that growing knowledge base provides the raw materials for concocting new explanations that hopefully add to our stock of ideas and concepts. Hopefully it starts to snowball. I think that we might have seen that at the Scientific Revolution.

    Unfortunately there's too much of that. Especially right here on Sciforums. It's probably a good idea to remember that none of our Sciforums participants are scientists themselves.

    If opponents of "Neo-Darwinism" (whatever that means) and proponents of Intelligent Design want more recognition within science, perhaps they need to devote less time to sniping at those they disagree with and devote more effort to creating a productive research program of their own. Some place like the Discovery Institute could initially host it. Generate some hypotheses that succeed in explaining things that conventional biology can't explain. Test those hypotheses somehow and show that they are supported by the evidence in ways that conventional biology isn't.

    Until that happens, ID isn't going to be accepted as a science. Nor should it be.

    Of course even if ID succeeds in doing all that, many atheists will still reject it for ideological reasons. That's to be expected. But if ID is ever better at explaining and predicting things than conventional science, it will become a player and even its opponents will have to produce intelligent scientific responses. But full acceptance will be a long time coming and might take centuries.

    I don't really expect that ID will ever rise to the challenge of actually becoming a science. I'm not sure how it can' given the nature of its ontological presuppositions.

    I agree that one of the defects of how laypeople are supposed to think about science is the way that they are expected to worship it. There's almost no interest in understanding it, its history or how it works. The philosophy of science is routinely ridiculed. So grand-and-glorious Science turns into a source of authority that's little different than the Bible is to Christian fundies.

    I think that it's more prevalent among non-scientists than it is among scientists themselves. That's starting to change though. If science ever is corrupted and changes from an open minded and open ended search for knowledge into a theological style system of authority, then we might be headed for a new dark age.

    I profoundly hope that isn't true. But I fear that the day is getting closer.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I kind of think that the suppression of opposing evidence has already been going on for a while now.

    I could show you an example, if you wish.

    (And thank you for the Videos, I just haven’t had the time to watch them yet. I am looking forward to watching them both.)
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    You really sure?

    How would Darwinism ever be rejected on the basis of a singular discovery?

    I think that Peer Pressure would suppress the evidence into oblivion, at least within the Scientific Community, that Theists would use it as evidence, and that they would then be slandered and character assassinated, belittled, insulted, fired, etc. for doing so.

    That is what I believe Dawkins, at least, would do.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Thank You, I will carefully consider your comments!

Share This Page