What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: borntowatch

Why dont I explain my position? Whats the point. I am not here to win people over, especially the people who haunt these threads and are clearly antagonists.

Seems convenient. Perhaps you can't.....?

yeah, perhaps you are right

originally posted by: borntowatch
One of us doesnt... obviously
I have made a claim that I dont believe in the evolutinary aspects of some sciences, you claimed I dont believe in science, and you dont think thats absurd. Seriously? strawman

Why would I think it is absurd to think that you don't understand how science works and goes about finding answers? Your disbelief in the wide range of topics in the OP demonstrates that this is the case. So saying that, I see no reason to say that you believe science in general. You can qualify it all you want with rhetoric like "evolutionary aspects of some sciences", but you have demonstrated in this thread an unwillingness to educate yourself on these things when evidence is presented to you. So I see no reason to believe that you would act any differently when any other science topics are discussed. You haven't exactly done anything to prove me wrong despite explaining myself several times to you.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you. I'm trying to get you to abandon your antiquated mode of thinking about how science works and develops its theories. I am trying to get you to look at the evidence without bias. I want you to actually LEARN about these theories, what they say, what they try to explain, what they don't say and what they don't try to explain so that we can actually have a REAL discussion on them.

This means you have to abandon the god line of thought when looking at this. The idea isn't to see if the theory can fit around your version of god and religion. The idea is to just look at the theory in a vacuum, analyze the evidence, then come to a conclusion about its veracity. And don't try to tell me you do this, because you and I both know that would be a lie. You have already demonstrated that you don't understand these theories well enough to comment on them being true or not (like saying that the big bang was the start of the universe or that abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same theory). If after careful analysis of these theories and their evidence you STILL think they are flawed, THEN we can have a discussion on them with real points from you on why they aren't real. THAT is how you science. Whatever this thread is, isn't science.

By the way, once you start actually studying these theories, you will find that they are VERY in depth and require a large amount of study and commitment to learning them. You will understand why I originally denounced your OP for highlighting all these different theories at once because being able to debate them all at once is WAY to hard and intellectually consuming. You will understand that each of these topics requires a separate thread with separate research for each of them.

It would seem that many of the posts in this topic make the assumption that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive.

They aren't.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

So please explain how, as if you were never taught or watched the process, how a plant or tree grows from "nothing" to a mature organism. Your starting point would be the end result, the mature plant/tree. Explain the steps you would take in order to "explain" it's life cycle, please.

You may think this has nothing to do with your argument . . . but, it gets right to the heart of the matter.

Is your process equal to no investigation and claiming "god did it" or would you take a different approach. If different, please explain . . .

Thanks . . .

God!

Thats a good question

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

As you've responded to others after I asked if the above was your final answer, I'm assuming that's it? Groovy . . . let's examine why you have a problem "accepting" scientific evidence. I'm also going to assume that you will be offended, somewhat, by my response. That is not my intention; however, based on your responses it seems likely.

God!

For starters, you've answered the "question" before your attempt at figuring out the process. This leads to a whole host of bias conclusions that do nothing to provide you with an explanation of the process. Unless, you can show me some video of your god "making" trees or have him give me a call to demonstrate his methods, you've already backed yourself into a corner that provides you with no knowledge that is useful in the "real world". Without physical evidence of said god's work . . . we can only rely what we can measure (laws and processes of nature).

You seem to be operating on the assumption that science uses the same methods, when in actuality it is the opposite. The answer or story doesn't precede the analysis and fact finding. This is issue #1 with your inability to understand scientific theory.

A mature tree stands
I would look at other trees and see what they are doing
Look to see what young trees are doing
Look to see what causes them to grow

This is a gross oversimplification of the process needed to figure out the life cycle of the tree. A process by the way that was figured out 15-12 thousand yrs ago by our ancestors . . . leading to agriculture. It would in no way give you the answers sought. But then again . . . you've already figured that out (god), so really what is the point, right? And since you've settled on "trees" from here on out I'll be discussing this in the most basic form of "growth" seed to maturity. I won't be delving into the more complicated aspects of sexual or asexual reproduction, as most plants and trees can employ both.

It seems you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills. This does not mean you are stupid or anything like that. Critical thinking is an acquired skill that must be taught and practiced. Science relies on critical thinking and those that lack in this area don't seem to understand how evidence is gained or the predictive quality of its conclusions.

Simply observing trees will give you a starting point, but in no way explains the process. I'm not even sure what you mean by "look at other trees and see what they are doing". Trees stand. Sway in the breeze. They don't "do" anything, whether old or young. Just as you claim we can't "see condensed energy" or a "trigger" . . . simply looking at a tree in various stages of development you can't actually "see" any of the things you claim to be able to "look at" without getting your hands dirty. What is happening under the dirt? Why did the tree end up where it is?

What our ancestors did 12000 yrs ago with plants is the same process employed for figuring out things like the BB or who killed the neighbor down the block. The process is the same . . . just with a different medium. You start with the end product and work backwards. For trees/plants, eventually this lead to a seedling. If you dig up a seedling, you (generally) will find a remnant of the seed/shell. You should be able to observe these same seeds on the mature tree. Now, this very simple method led out ancestors to agriculture, even though they didn't know about "science" or "critical thinking" and may have even attributed supernatural causation (like yourself). This doesn't let us know how a seed sprouts, the causes, or why . . . but, it clearly demonstrates that a supernatural entity didn't simply "plop" trees into their current location. From there, simple experimentation with seeds (amount of light, water, type of soil, weather conditions) further explain how a tree seemingly grows from nothing to a large oak. How do we test if what we see and measure is correct? Predictions. If we can make accurate predictions on our knowledge . . . we can be sure we understand the process.

Your method of thought is devoid of curiosity (figuring out the why) and imagination (exploring all possibilities), as you have no need for it. Your method of though makes no predictions that can tested for. Your mind is stuck in god mode . . . nothing will shake that. Religious explanations can make no predictions of the process . . . as there are no measurements. Self-fulfilling prophecy and vague fortune telling don't count . . . as they are not really predictable. God says there will be earthquakes, floods, fire in the sky, war, famine, drought, pestilence in the future . . . No crap, as there have always been those things and always will be. Predictions must be specific and testable . . . just as they are in Evolutionary Theory or Cosmology.

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

Unfortunately for your line of thinking . . . the process of discovery is the same. We simply work backwards to reach the conclusion that all evidence points to. How do we figure out what an exploded bomb was made of? What leads detectives to capture a murderer? Work backwards and let the evidence paint the story . . . the story doesn't come before the evidence.

For instance, the BB was a mathematical certainty long before we found any physical evidence to support it. Mathematicians and physicists worked out (working backwards) the life cycle of this universe all the way back to a singularity, just as an explosives expert works back to a blast site based on the after effects. Furthering the support for the BB, advances in technology have let us validate the math through observation and prediction. The "theory" predicted the presence of the highly energized remnants of this blast (background radiation) and when we had the technology we found it.

Just as black holes were a mathematical certainty decades before any physical evidence existed. Heck, Hawking denied the existence of black holes for years . . . until our technology advanced enough to provide us with the ability to "see" them.

a reply to: solomons path
Continued from above to Born . . .

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

"See" in what sense (no pun intended)? We can see the small (atoms and their particles). We can see condensed energy (seeds, atoms, black holes, etc.) The universe, and the evidence of the laws of nature, do not require you can see with your poor human eyes or even in the visible spectrum. That's why we develop instruments to "aid" the poor excuse we call our "five senses".

To conclude . . . your incredulity is nothing but a biased worldview keeping you from entertaining new information. The issue isn't with the information . . . it is with your mental block and inability to employ critical thinking skills. It would be best to realize that your worldview isn't supported by reality and stay away from issues that rely on evidence on independently varifible data (science).

Holding a degree in developmental psychology . . . I completely understand why you have a hard time "accepting" most physical sciences . . . however, your beliefs belie the reality of what we can observe and predict about the natural world.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
One of us doesnt... obviously
I have made a claim that I dont believe in the evolutinary aspects of some sciences, you claimed I dont believe in science, and you dont think thats absurd. Seriously? strawman

Why would I think it is absurd to think that you don't understand how science works and goes about finding answers? Your disbelief in the wide range of topics in the OP demonstrates that this is the case. So saying that, I see no reason to say that you believe science in general. You can qualify it all you want with rhetoric like "evolutionary aspects of some sciences", but you have demonstrated in this thread an unwillingness to educate yourself on these things when evidence is presented to you. So I see no reason to believe that you would act any differently when any other science topics are discussed. You haven't exactly done anything to prove me wrong despite explaining myself several times to you.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you. I'm trying to get you to abandon your antiquated mode of thinking about how science works and develops its theories. I am trying to get you to look at the evidence without bias. I want you to actually LEARN about these theories, what they say, what they try to explain, what they don't say and what they don't try to explain so that we can actually have a REAL discussion on them.

This means you have to abandon the god line of thought when looking at this. The idea isn't to see if the theory can fit around your version of god and religion. The idea is to just look at the theory in a vacuum, analyze the evidence, then come to a conclusion about its veracity. And don't try to tell me you do this, because you and I both know that would be a lie. You have already demonstrated that you don't understand these theories well enough to comment on them being true or not (like saying that the big bang was the start of the universe or that abiogenesis and evolution are part of the same theory). If after careful analysis of these theories and their evidence you STILL think they are flawed, THEN we can have a discussion on them with real points from you on why they aren't real. THAT is how you science. Whatever this thread is, isn't science.

By the way, once you start actually studying these theories, you will find that they are VERY in depth and require a large amount of study and commitment to learning them. You will understand why I originally denounced your OP for highlighting all these different theories at once because being able to debate them all at once is WAY to hard and intellectually consuming. You will understand that each of these topics requires a separate thread with separate research for each of them.

You are not an honest person,you take my statement and change it in to an absurd statement.
anyway no biggy, but I will admit a mistake, not like you.

How about if I was an atheist and I stated there was not enough evidence to sway me.

1 in 11 atheists in the US are sceptical of evolution

Michael Gerson notes in the Washington Post:

The latest findings of the Pew Forum’s massive and indispensable U.S. Religious Landscape Survey reveal some intriguing confusion among Americans on cosmic issues. About 13 percent of evangelicals, it turns out, don’t believe in a personal God, leading to a shameful waste of golf time on Sunday mornings. And 9 percent of atheists report that they are skeptical of evolution. Are there atheist creationists?www.washingtonpost.com...


Have I demonstrated I dont know the theories, you dont know a strawman argument and you want me to demonstrate my understandings of creation or evolution, Tuh Tuh Tuh, no thanks.
You are not trustworthy and you think to highly of yourself, I recon you are a bully and use intimidation manipulation and arrogance to win.
I never stated abiogenesis was the same theory as biological evolution.
I labelled abiogenesis as a separate form of evolution, your statement is misleading and dishonest...again
I dont wish to play with you, simple isnt it

You are right in so much as stating this thread is not science, simply because it deals with types of evolution and evolution is not a science, its a faith, you believe the evidence proves the theory.
I believe Jesus proves God, my evidence

You answered nothing in relation to my evolution of the cosmos, want a crack at answering about star and planet formation, maybe discuss the legitimacy of say the Kuiper belt.

and No I dont want your help, thanks anyway

a reply to: borntowatch

Nice red herring that has nothing to do with science or it's validity. BTW - an Op-Ed peice is about as valid of an argument as you presented in your OP. An op-ed piece that is written by member of the American Christian Right . . . certainly no bias there either.

Are there atheist creationists?

Yes . . . I know one. He believes that aliens created life on Earth. Now . . . just like the god-squad, he has no answer for any natural laws and has absolutely no evidence for his assertions.

He believes DNA is a code programmed to work the way it does, in the same way those that believe in god incorporate natural law as being "god's will".

However, that has no bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Theory, just like a belief in god has no bearing on observable laws of nature.

One can claim to be an atheist and still be stuck in the mindset of superstition and fantasy.

originally posted by: borntowatch


You are right in so much as stating this thread is not science, simply because it deals with types of evolution and evolution is not a science, its a faith, you believe the evidence proves the theory.
I believe Jesus proves God, my evidence

But evolution has a plethora of scientific proof behind it. Findings, observations, notes, evidence. There is more evidence that evolution occurs than there is that Jesus even existed I'm afraid.

originally posted by: solomons path


As you've responded to others after I asked if the above was your final answer, I'm assuming that's it? Groovy . . . let's examine why you have a problem "accepting" scientific evidence. I'm also going to assume that you will be offended, somewhat, by my response. That is not my intention; however, based on your responses it seems likely.

God!

For starters, you've answered the "question" before your attempt at figuring out the process. This leads to a whole host of bias conclusions that do nothing to provide you with an explanation of the process. Unless, you can show me some video of your god "making" trees or have him give me a call to demonstrate his methods, you've already backed yourself into a corner that provides you with no knowledge that is useful in the "real world". Without physical evidence of said god's work . . . we can only rely what we can measure (laws and processes of nature).

You seem to be operating on the assumption that science uses the same methods, when in actuality it is the opposite. The answer or story doesn't precede the analysis and fact finding. This is issue #1 with your inability to understand scientific theory.



It seems you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills. This does not mean you are stupid or anything like that. Critical thinking is an acquired skill that must be taught and practiced. Science relies on critical thinking and those that lack in this area don't seem to understand how evidence is gained or the predictive quality of its conclusions.


What our ancestors did 12000 yrs ago with plants is the same process employed for figuring out things like the BB or who killed the neighbor down the block. The process is the same . . . just with a different medium. You start with the end product and work backwards. For trees/plants, eventually this lead to a seedling. If you dig up a seedling, you (generally) will find a remnant of the seed/shell. You should be able to observe these same seeds on the mature tree. Now, this very simple method led out ancestors to agriculture, even though they didn't know about "science" or "critical thinking" and may have even attributed supernatural causation (like yourself). This doesn't let us know how a seed sprouts, the causes, or why . . . but, it clearly demonstrates that a supernatural entity didn't simply "plop" trees into their current location. From there, simple experimentation with seeds (amount of light, water, type of soil, weather conditions) further explain how a tree seemingly grows from nothing to a large oak. How do we test if what we see and measure is correct? Predictions. If we can make accurate predictions on our knowledge . . . we can be sure we understand the process.

Your method of thought is devoid of curiosity (figuring out the why) and imagination (exploring all possibilities), as you have no need for it. Your method of though makes no predictions that can tested for. Your mind is stuck in god mode . . . nothing will shake that. Religious explanations can make no predictions of the process . . . as there are no measurements. Self-fulfilling prophecy and vague fortune telling don't count . . . as they are not really predictable. God says there will be earthquakes, floods, fire in the sky, war, famine, drought, pestilence in the future . . . No crap, as there have always been those things and always will be. Predictions must be specific and testable . . . just as they are in Evolutionary Theory or Cosmology.


Unfortunately for your line of thinking . . . the process of discovery is the same. We simply work backwards to reach the conclusion that all evidence points to. How do we figure out what an exploded bomb was made of? What leads detectives to capture a murderer? Work backwards and let the evidence paint the story . . . the story doesn't come before the evidence.

For instance, the BB was a mathematical certainty long before we found any physical evidence to support it. Mathematicians and physicists worked out (working backwards) the life cycle of this universe all the way back to a singularity, just as an explosives expert works back to a blast site based on the after effects. Furthering the support for the BB, advances in technology have let us validate the math through observation and prediction. The "theory" predicted the presence of the highly energized remnants of this blast (background radiation) and when we had the technology we found it.

Just as black holes were a mathematical certainty decades before any physical evidence existed. Heck, Hawking denied the existence of black holes for years . . . until our technology advanced enough to provide us with the ability to "see" them.

Yeah God, it was a Joke, based on a churlish post next to yours. over analysis somewhat

I didnt realise you wanted an essay, your not getting one, its 3am where I am

I cant give you a video of my God but I can give you written testimony, pointless I know.

Now thanks for all that info and please dont be disappointed by the ease I dismiss your hard work, I do appreciate it and have read it in detail

Now I am well aware how evidence is gained, manipulated (evolutionists have done that in the past) and distorted (yes we know)
We know the value of the public dollar to forward science, what do you reckon. I am still shocked by the East Anglia university global warming fiasco that was swept under the carpet.
Science is not just about knowledge, people are corrupt, Your method of thought is devoid of common sense.

My issue is not trees sprouting, its how life sprouted. Seeing life and hearing somebody explain it by saying lightning dirt and water caused it, is just silly.
A tree is a tree, I want critical thinking applied to abiogenesis, mud water and lightning is not critical thinking. The big bang.
A little thingy, thats heavier than everything suddenly for no apparent reason blows up in to all these different elements, and stars and planets andyou are talking about trees, really
You want me to think critically, I want you to do the same

sadly I think your tree argument is as simple as you are thinking, thats not to be rude or nasty.
Its how I see your argument and your thinking on this matgter. i can deduce you are not simple, you teach well.
Your problem is you accept the theory, all of them, verbatim. All the gaps are filled by the answer; we have a theory, you question nothing.

the big bang happened, the tiny thingy blew up for some reason and everything came out of it.we have a theory

The planets formed, so did the stars. Matter and energy for some reason grouped in planet/star sized masses and then started to spin, some in opposite directions. we have a theory

Elements formed in stars, dont know how but they still do. we have a theory

Life came from nothing??? we have a theory

Life evolves in spite of everything thrown at it. we have a theory

If that set of theorys is adequate for you then good, but they are not answers, not even an answer

If you critically thought of why all the big questions needed theorys to answer them, I dont think it would change how you thought. Theory, your god of the gaps, evidently

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

Nice red herring that has nothing to do with science or it's validity. BTW - an Op-Ed peice is about as valid of an argument as you presented in your OP. An op-ed piece that is written by member of the American Christian Right . . . certainly no bias there either.

Are there atheist creationists?

Yes . . . I know one. He believes that aliens created life on Earth. Now . . . just like the god-squad, he has no answer for any natural laws and has absolutely no evidence for his assertions.

He believes DNA is a code programmed to work the way it does, in the same way those that believe in god incorporate natural law as being "god's will".

However, that has no bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Theory, just like a belief in god has no bearing on observable laws of nature.

One can claim to be an atheist and still be stuck in the mindset of superstition and fantasy.

i didnt mean it to be a red herring, just trying to show some people who are not religious see the world as far to complex to have arisen by chance.

If I came across any other way it was unintentional

originally posted by: borntowatch

i didnt mean it to be a red herring, just trying to show some people who are not religious see the world as far to complex to have arisen by chance.

If I came across any other way it was unintentional

Who said anything about 'by chance'?

Where did you get that?

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: solomons path
Continued from above to Born . . .

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

"See" in what sense (no pun intended)? We can see the small (atoms and their particles). We can see condensed energy (seeds, atoms, black holes, etc.) The universe, and the evidence of the laws of nature, do not require you can see with your poor human eyes or even in the visible spectrum. That's why we develop instruments to "aid" the poor excuse we call our "five senses".

To conclude . . . your incredulity is nothing but a biased worldview keeping you from entertaining new information. The issue isn't with the information . . . it is with your mental block and inability to employ critical thinking skills. It would be best to realize that your worldview isn't supported by reality and stay away from issues that rely on evidence on independently varifible data (science).

Holding a degree in developmental psychology . . . I completely understand why you have a hard time "accepting" most physical sciences . . . however, your beliefs belie the reality of what we can observe and predict about the natural world.

It is surreal how I can read your post and see what I consider a blindness to your own blindness you accuse me of having.

Where are your critical thinking skills, how can you accept the answer to every question is a theory

"The poor excuse we call the 5 senses" seriously, we cant repair these poor excuses called the 5 senses, they are that finely developed, but you dismiss them. Nihilism, be afraid of that, your life does have a purpose, find your purpose

Now understand this replyto what I see as the most patronising pompous drivel I have read
I dont have a hard time understanding or accepting physical sciences, just the ones involving evolution that rely on a theory to formulate an answer

Now if I may, get outside of the box, read a book on the afterlife, research the bible.
Your reality is unreal, science is not a god, it doesnt have all the answers. Science is a formula, a formula often manipulated by men, to often.

a reply to: borntowatch
I'll address both of your responses in a single post . . .

I wasn't expecting an essay. I was looking for an example of your cognitive process, which you gave. Even in your response, you are ignoring the fact that simple "observation" didn't lead to theory. You seem to be reading (or have learned) a simple layman's explanation of different theories, without understanding the methods that actually led to it becoming theory. You are describing the methodology that religion employs and relies on, then projecting it on to scientific theory. After which, you dismiss the scientific theory based on the ignorant view you have of these theories. Wrong from the premise.

For instance, Abiogenesis is not simply lightning+dirt+water caused life. You are basing this off of one experiment, the Miller-Urey experiment. In that experiment, electricity was used a a method of providing intense heat. However, the "heat" is the important part that should be focused on . . . not the lightning. Also, there is nothing about "dirt". That said, Abiogenesis is not a "theory" it is a hypothesis and the Miller-Urey method is only one hypothesis of many current.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour,[9] and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed.[10] Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[11]

As observed in all subsequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. In biological systems, most of the compounds are non-racemic, or homochiral.

The original experiment remains today under the care of Miller and Urey's former student Jeffrey Bada, a professor at UCSD, at the University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.[12] The apparatus used to conduct the experiment is on display at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.[13]

Most of your "objections" are based on lack of knowledge and misunderstanding, most likely because you haven't taken the time to actually read up or take a class on the actual issues. This is why you were called out for straw man arguments . . . you are arguing against something that isn't true.

I've thought very critically about all of the issues you brought up. "Gaps" as you call them are simply unknowns. Unknowns don't negate what we do know (and can prove) and don't, in any way, damage the credibility of what we have discovered about the natural world.

Science isn't about "answers", as you would recognize them from a religious mindset. Science is nothing more than a methodology to figure things out. Science explains how the universe (nature) operate. If you want answers, stop worrying about "science" and immerse yourself in philosophy. However, realize that any science that opposes philosophy isn't about negating that philosophy. It's about following the evidence we can measure.

For your second response . . . more misunderstanding. Science does not claim the universe or life came about through "chance". That is an age-old ecumenical criticism of evolution through natural means. It was in response to the notion of "random mutations" . . . random means not guided by consciousness. It does not mean it all happened by chance.

The universe relies on the laws of nature, as does biology (or chemistry when talking about biogenesis). Once again, you are arguing about something that modern scientific theories don't claim. Before you discredit something, shouldn't you, at least, understand what it is you are opposed to? Anything less makes one seem foolish and discredits their arguments right away.

So, in a sense, you are right. Nothing happened by chance.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: solomons path
Continued from above to Born . . .

Just remember we are talking about the universe, not trees.
We cant see the BB, we cant see "a little thing"
We cant see condensed energy, nor a trigger to release the energy

"See" in what sense (no pun intended)? We can see the small (atoms and their particles). We can see condensed energy (seeds, atoms, black holes, etc.) The universe, and the evidence of the laws of nature, do not require you can see with your poor human eyes or even in the visible spectrum. That's why we develop instruments to "aid" the poor excuse we call our "five senses".

To conclude . . . your incredulity is nothing but a biased worldview keeping you from entertaining new information. The issue isn't with the information . . . it is with your mental block and inability to employ critical thinking skills. It would be best to realize that your worldview isn't supported by reality and stay away from issues that rely on evidence on independently varifible data (science).

Holding a degree in developmental psychology . . . I completely understand why you have a hard time "accepting" most physical sciences . . . however, your beliefs belie the reality of what we can observe and predict about the natural world.

It is surreal how I can read your post and see what I consider a blindness to your own blindness you accuse me of having.

Where are your critical thinking skills, how can you accept the answer to every question is a theory

"The poor excuse we call the 5 senses" seriously, we cant repair these poor excuses called the 5 senses, they are that finely developed, but you dismiss them. Nihilism, be afraid of that, your life does have a purpose, find your purpose

Now understand this replyto what I see as the most patronising pompous drivel I have read
I dont have a hard time understanding or accepting physical sciences, just the ones involving evolution that rely on a theory to formulate an answer

Now if I may, get outside of the box, read a book on the afterlife, research the bible.
Your reality is unreal, science is not a god, it doesnt have all the answers. Science is a formula, a formula often manipulated by men, to often.

Theories don't formulate an answer. The "answer" is developed based on the evidence. The "answer" is then incorporated with other lines of evidence and other fields of science to formulate "theory".

And, I don't blindly follow anything. How is that an example of critical thinking?

One instance, I happen to be partial to the hypothesis of Panspermia. Will we ever find out if it is panspermia or abiogenesis (through chemistry) . . . who knows? My guess is that IF we ever find out how life started here, it will be a mixture of both. However, I will admit that currently abiogenesis has more evidence to support it than panspermia. Either way . . . it has nothing to do with Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (which is the current evolutionary model).

originally posted by: borntowatch
I have made a claim that I dont believe in the evolutinary aspects of some sciences, you claimed I dont believe in science, and you dont think thats absurd. Seriously? strawman

That's the problem. You say evolutionary aspects of various systems, when that aspect is different for every single one. The theory of evolution is about genetic mutations and natural selection. It has nothing to do with chemical evolution, stellar evolution and the other things you mentioned. If you have problems with them, they should be addressed individual and the science is what should be addressed.

originally posted by: borntowatch
You are not an honest person,you take my statement and change it in to an absurd statement.
anyway no biggy, but I will admit a mistake, not like you.

What is this honesty thing? This is the internet. I back up my claims with sources. I don't rely on any credibility. All I see is a screenname. I may have conversed with you before, but that doesn't mean that I trust you. Who cares about honesty when I can just prove my point with sources?

How about if I was an atheist and I stated there was not enough evidence to sway me.

1 in 11 atheists in the US are sceptical of evolution

Michael Gerson notes in the Washington Post:

The latest findings of the Pew Forum’s massive and indispensable U.S. Religious Landscape Survey reveal some intriguing confusion among Americans on cosmic issues. About 13 percent of evangelicals, it turns out, don’t believe in a personal God, leading to a shameful waste of golf time on Sunday mornings. And 9 percent of atheists report that they are skeptical of evolution. Are there atheist creationists?www.washingtonpost.com...

So what is your point? Atheists can be dumb too. Personally, I think saying absolute disbelief in a god is rather dumb, so there's that too. Wait, you didn't think I was an atheist did you?

Have I demonstrated I dont know the theories, you dont know a strawman argument and you want me to demonstrate my understandings of creation or evolution, Tuh Tuh Tuh, no thanks.

I know what a strawman argument is. Creationists use them against me all the time in these debates. I DIDN'T do a strawman against you. I just told you why I think the way I do about you. I know it's upsetting, but you are frustrating to talk to since you cannot accept any evidence even when it is put right in front of you.

You are not trustworthy and you think to highly of yourself, I recon you are a bully and use intimidation manipulation and arrogance to win.

Sure, let's go with that.

I never stated abiogenesis was the same theory as biological evolution.
I labelled abiogenesis as a separate form of evolution, your statement is misleading and dishonest...again
I dont wish to play with you, simple isnt it

Ok, then answer this question: Does the theory of evolution require abiogenesis to be true in order for it to be true?

You are right in so much as stating this thread is not science, simply because it deals with types of evolution and evolution is not a science, its a faith,

Incorrect. It is a natural conclusion one arrives to from examining the countless amounts of evidence that is falsifiable and can be duplicated any number of ways.

you believe the evidence proves the theory.

Correct.

I believe Jesus proves God, my evidence

This would be correct if you could prove that Jesus as written in the bible actually lived, died, lived again, ascended into heaven and all the other crazy miracles attributed to him like the bible claims. Those are cool stories, but you gotta show me some evidence that they happened and I'll believe them (besides the bible). I'm agnostic, all you need to do is give me enough compelling evidence for something and I'll believe it. Right now, there isn't compelling evidence that jesus as written actually did those things. It sounds to me more like some people developed a cult of personality around him and embellished a few stories about a dude (or maybe it is an amalgamation of several dudes). You can't disprove any of those theories over your account of things, so I remain undecided on the matter.

You answered nothing in relation to my evolution of the cosmos, want a crack at answering about star and planet formation, maybe discuss the legitimacy of say the Kuiper belt.

You know, you are asking a tall order on my knowledge of science here buddy. This is especially harrowing for me since you didn't even bother to review the first information I gave you. I'm not feeling particularly motivated to try to educate you on those topics if you are just going to ignore them again. How about you go study up on the big bang and abiogenesis from the links I provided earlier first?

and No I dont want your help, thanks anyway

That's a shame. I'm only trying to open your mind to new possibilities by giving some tips on how to do that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You answered nothing in relation to my evolution of the cosmos, want a crack at answering about star and planet formation, maybe discuss the legitimacy of say the Kuiper belt.
- borntowatch

I didn't touch this in my response to this post either. Not because I don't understand current hypotheses regarding the Kuiper Belt, but I'm unsure what he/she means about "legitimacy"? Does he/she not think it exists . . . or is there a special creationist explanation for it? Hmmmmm.....

a reply to: solomons path

I don't know to be honest. I haven't heard the Creationist spin on the Kuiper Belt. I didn't even know it was under debate. So are we going to have government hearings on the Kuiper Belt and... whatever they think is there? God? And if they should be taught together in school?

a reply to: borntowatch

Let me put this in simple terms for you:

If you were to talk to a scientist about gravity, do you assume that gravity isn't real because they can't say the moment that gravity began on the planet?


Evolution is a separate science from abiogenesis. Just like abiogenesis is separate from meteorology, hydrology,
physics, and all the other sciences.

originally posted by: borntowatch

I believe Jesus proves God, my evidence

It is fascinating that it took around the same time for John Frum to go from an ordinary person who caused a Kerfuffle amongst islanders and missionaries...to full on magical deity/saviour status...as it did for Christ (going by the literture). Perhaps it was a little quicker for Frum, as biblical historians always fudge anything to the earliest possible time, for obvious reasons.

The only real difference is that it is far more likely (almost certain) that the person who John Frum is based on, was in fact a real historical person (we even have a claim from J. Frum's son...).

As a Vanuatan "keeper of the faith" remarked when a Christian asked him if it might be a little silly to expect the return of Frum after 70-80 yrs..."you have been waiting for 2000 yrs for your savior and you haven't given up hope"

It puts the whole thing in perspective.

This is you proof of god? In any objective sense, it is no more likely (in fact less so) than the claims of the melenesian Frum cult.