It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

I again agree with the majority of what you say. Please do keep this in mind as I argue not with the majority of what you say, but really the finer points. Also, before I start, let me just say thank you for being open to geological evidences.

First, I agree that localized floods have occurred countless times in history, prehistory, and modern times (there is great evidence for the biblical flood having happened in a localized area, for instance). See, many cultures have found living next to rivers/bodies of water beneficial for many reasons. In earlier cultures, perhaps they needed the water to drink and irrigate. Perhaps they found the soils next to the river fertile and good for agriculture. Perhaps they used the river to transport objects and people. Here's the thing though, those attributes come at a cost. All rivers flood. (Fertile soils on floodplains of a river are fertile because the floods often bring fresh organics and fine soil particulates).

This leads me to a question... Why do you assume that all of those flood myths refer to a single event? Is it not more likely that as a result of living on a floodplain, many cultures have flood myths independent of one another? I mean, they all don't occur at the same time or geographic place, do they?

Again, I agree this only really matters to literalists, which you don't seem to be. So, when I said that the fact that a global flood has no geological evidence to support it (thus disproving the Abrahamic God of the bible), I meant that literalists would have to account for that. The best way would be a deceptive God removing the evidence of such a flood, perhaps as a test of faith. I find this contrived and unnecessary when a non-literal interpretation of a story to teach values works better... Again, not directed at you, merely an example of how one could "falsify" literalists' ideologies.

Also, I find it out that you should assert that "fountains of the deep" exist when we have (to paraphrase) "no information what they are comprised of" or even what they are. So, you are really asserting these as facts despite having no reason other than the bible to believe in them. This makes me question how literally you really are reading into the bible, as it clearly seems that you are reading it and believing a literal interpretation in this case. Now, I believe you when you say you aren't a literalist, but this logic seems contradictory to me.

As for the opening of the Atlantic, I really don't understand what this has to do with Noah's Ark (and by extension clean and unclean animals in an area). Could you explain that a bit further, please?

As for the unicorn, I agree, it shouldn't be thought of literally how we think of unicorns. But that is the problem, there ARE biblical literalists, and there DO need to be these discussions. I'm not accusing anyone of being a biblical literalist (although I suppose I questioned your belief in the "fountains of the deep," but I don't think that would make you a literalist in the unquestioning belief sense...), but I have known a few, and they certainly exist, so it is not necessarily a straw-man argument to use them as an example of how science could potentially falsify a religious (literal) claim, though it could not falsify religious (non-literal/metaphysical) claims.

Again, to be more clear, I do not claim that religions can be falsified by evidence, merely that evidence can falsify religious claims IF those claims are held as literal claims... (if you do not use the deceptive God argument). To be even more clear, I like some of the parts of the bible, I like some of the morals, and I encourage the continuation of those morals which further harmony and peaceful relations between people. I think, if interpreted with a less than literal mindset, it can be a very good guide for human behavior (more specifically, I think most of Jesus's teachings would be... Not so sure how I feel about Paul).

I'm not trying to remove your faith in God, I'm not advocating for the destruction of your religion of choice (or anyone's for that matter). All I'm asking is that you truly and honestly look at the evidence and understand what scientists are saying about evolution/whatever other theories. Like I said, evolution and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive UNLESS you are a biblical literalist (because then you must deal with the two accounts of creation in Genesis which contradict evolution and observations in genetics, geology, and paleontology...).

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

1. Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane
2. To investigate if early Earth conditions were favorable for the formation of complex organic molecules.
3. Results were good, but recently the vials have been retested, showing organic molecules previously unmentioned in earlier tests.
4. This experiment leads to examining organic chemistry to discover the processes by which organic molecules can form devoid of life (such as the organic molecules in asteroids and comets...). Of course, it could also be used as evidence as some potential precursor to abiogenesis.
www.space.com...
5. None, other than this might be how life started. Again, need life before evolution can happen.
6. It is relevant to young students in science (biology) classes who need an overview of how life (biology) came about. In higher educations, one might learn for example that the Miller-Urey experiment might not have accurately predicted the proper atmospheric content of early Earth, meaning that although the results were organic molecules, it might not have been this particular mechanism that produced life on Earth. Or more generally, this might not be the precise process that lead to life.

For all answers, the source was this page...
en.wikipedia.org...

Do note that even 4, and 6 are mentioned on the page... 1,2, and 3 were answered in the top paragraphs before the actual content.

I understand your criticism of "dumbing down" science for beginners and children, but surely you must admit that it is necessary. We cannot afford to scare children away from learning science's great expectations of methodology from the beginning, right? I don't like it either, but as long as these bad habits are corrected before such students leave for the real world (as a young scientist graduating from college for example, these should be cleared up), then I can accept it as a necessary evil.

Consider it this way, if I were going to teach you how to do calculus, would you want me to start by going over ALL of the complicated rules and methods, or would you prefer I ease you into it with more general examples which might not always be perfectly true? Even if you prefer the truth, consider it from a kid's perspective, one who must deal with being graded... One who has perfection demanded from him from the start. Do you think this is a fair system?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Hmm, you didn't read the abstract, only my quote from it. OK here you go abiogenesis taught in textbooks

I'm sorry, but doesn't McGraw-Hill still publish textbooks for school?



Um, that link described the Miller Urey experiment which ACTUALLY happened. It even says right at the bottom "hypothesized". Where does it say that abiogenesis is a fact? Every study you quote goes against what you claim. Why is that?


Who do they say hypothesized? Neither Miiler nor Urey. Those two men merely tested the hypothesis.

What was the conclusion offered? Did they say the experiment didn't answer anything? Did they go on to say the hypothesis only worked for that experiment and yet wasn't that same experiment done to attempt to prove abiogenesis? And you are promoting the soft language.

Who hypothesized?
What was the purpose of the experiment?
What are the results of the experiment?
Did the experiment fail?
Where does the experiment lead to?
What do the results mean in understanding the process of evolution?
If it is not relevant, then why teach it?


But please, go on.


All of your questions were answered by Hydeman and in the video that you sourced. That experiment proved that basic organic molecules can form in the right conditions. It didn't say anywhere that it proved abiogenesis. What it did was open up the door for further experimentation to learn more about it. It was an experiment, and it is taught as a science experiment. What is your objection here? Should they ignore it? If so, why?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Hello

I had to reply on this post just to be able to read both of yours and comment on them.

The fountains of the deep as suggested in Genesis and part of the narrative would seem to be a stretch, but I like to see it anyway. As the author of Genesis states, if they knew about fountains of the deep, then that would be an incredible thing for them to have that knowledge. However, the Bible also indicates that at the time of this event, the earth didn't get rain either, but as the Bible describes as dew coming down.

While this doesn't necessarily say the Bible was right in this instance, it does have to give credence to the author's knowledge of something that has recently been discovered.

Fountains of the deep

But there is one prevailing theme in the flood stories, someone was always warned. In many stories the protagonist built a boat of some type. Some took animals. From a literary perspective, it does make sense that all these different cultures shared a common knowledge of the event.

I think if the Miller-Urey experiment didn't answer much toward the hypothesis, then perhaps other experiments would suffice?

Anyway, the reason that it makes sense to me for a pre-flood world is that one does see some evidence in the earth itself. No one can say there is no evidence whatsoever. And others claim it is pseudoscience when a particular scientist offers evidence. These two geologists did find evidence of deep water, and we know that Yellowstone Geyser is really making people nervous as of late. The projections for that model are frightening.

With the number of extinct volcanoes and those that seem to be still alive with activity, then perhaps it could have been a supervolcano that caused a flood.

This water is not in a form familiar to us -- it is not liquid, ice or vapor. This fourth form is water trapped inside the molecular structure of the minerals in the mantle rock. The weight of 250 miles of solid rock creates such high pressure, along with temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that a water molecule splits to form a hydroxyl radical (OH), which can be bound into a mineral's crystal structure.


If extraordinary pressure resulted in an explosion and water vapor did descend as rain and then flooded major portions of the earth, then it is possible it could still happen in the future. We can project that as well, but California hasn't fallen into the Pacific yet. What would happen if it did?

And in looking at the areas where the Bible says it happened, it was closer to the Red Sea or the Gulf of Arabia. The Bible doesn't mention where Noah (the person) was living, it only mentions where he ended up. While it says the Mountains of Ararat, even then it has to fit in with the criteria, as it mentions Noah planted grapes and then he got drunk off the wine. If you can't find grapes, then one has to question that.

You have to remember that in those days, their concept of India included what is Pakitan, which is a newer country. But it also included southern Iran. India is mentioned in the Bible several times, and even Josephus the historian mentions that Abraham (Abram) came from India. What they considered as India may have been well bigger than what we think of it today.

As far as not being a Biblical literalist, I am inclined to look at all previous texts also. The narrative in the ancient texts suggest the common themes, the world was wicked and filled with violence. A man was warned of some disaster. And that person either built a boat or floated on the back of a turtle.





edit on 9/6/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Hmm, you didn't read the abstract, only my quote from it. OK here you go abiogenesis taught in textbooks

I'm sorry, but doesn't McGraw-Hill still publish textbooks for school?



Um, that link described the Miller Urey experiment which ACTUALLY happened. It even says right at the bottom "hypothesized". Where does it say that abiogenesis is a fact? Every study you quote goes against what you claim. Why is that?


Who do they say hypothesized? Neither Miiler nor Urey. Those two men merely tested the hypothesis.

What was the conclusion offered? Did they say the experiment didn't answer anything? Did they go on to say the hypothesis only worked for that experiment and yet wasn't that same experiment done to attempt to prove abiogenesis? And you are promoting the soft language.

Who hypothesized?
What was the purpose of the experiment?
What are the results of the experiment?
Did the experiment fail?
Where does the experiment lead to?
What do the results mean in understanding the process of evolution?
If it is not relevant, then why teach it?


But please, go on.


All of your questions were answered by Hydeman and in the video that you sourced. That experiment proved that basic organic molecules can form in the right conditions. It didn't say anywhere that it proved abiogenesis. What it did was open up the door for further experimentation to learn more about it. It was an experiment, and it is taught as a science experiment. What is your objection here? Should they ignore it? If so, why?


What was the premise of the experiment in the first place?

Was it not set up to prove abiogenesis? And it failed to prove abiogenesis, so then it cannot be used as a model. So why is it continued to be taught when other experiments can be proven?

How about simply teaching children at the age of learning about science other experiments that are easy to grasp? Why does this one remain? To teach that the atmosphere contains hydrogen?

What is the purpose of promoting this one? Why not the famous experiments of trying to breed chimpanzees and humans? That one failed also, but it isn't taught to most students.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

What was the premise of the experiment in the first place?

Was it not set up to prove abiogenesis? And it failed to prove abiogenesis, so then it cannot be used as a model. So why is it continued to be taught when other experiments can be proven?


No, it wasn't necessarily set up to prove anything one way or another. It was to test a hypothesis and see if complex organic compounds could form from simpler organic precursors under the conditions thought to have existed early in the Earth's existence. Interesting thing to note is that several years ago, after Miller died in 07, vials from the original experiment that had remained sealed since that time revealed that well in excess of 20 amino acids had formed, more than Miller had reported and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. This is why the model is still valid as an educational tool. We may not know with 100% accuracy what every condition was on Earth at that time but Miller and Urey certainly showed that the hypothesis was reasonable and could work.


How about simply teaching children at the age of learning about science other experiments that are easy to grasp? Why does this one remain? To teach that the atmosphere contains hydrogen?


These are legitimate chemical processes that have been observed and repeated and its pretty easy for even middle school students to grasp how the reactions occur. Its an excellent educational tool and its not taught as a factual representation of how life formed, just one of several possibilities. I just don't see why you so strenuously object.


What is the purpose of promoting this one? Why not the famous experiments of trying to breed chimpanzees and humans? That one failed also, but it isn't taught to most students.


Probably because both experiments were conducted at the height if the Cold War. In America we tried to make organic soup and succeeded , in Russia they tried to inseminate other apes with human semen and failed. I think Miller-Urey is a far better teaching tool for young minds. Obviously you disagree.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Yeah, sorry for the double posting. I don't like doing it, but I didn't see your other message until after posting. I like to keep my opinions and thoughts independent of others' as much as possible before posting (which sometimes results in me posting something someone has already posted, but that's sometimes a good thing, as some people might better understand one explanation while others better understand the other).

Your source is a very interesting piece, and one that I've followed quite closely since announced in the popular press. Basically, the researchers found evidence in some samples of rock supporting an old theory (based on examinations of physical data, such as seismic data) that suggested there would be water present in the mantle. Here's the thing though, that water isn't liquid water. It is actually molecular water, in the form of hydroxide ions (-OH) in mineral crystal lattices... Specifically, ringwoodite (a type of olivine, which when gemmy is called peridot). These would not be fountain sources, but they might indeed contribute to volcanic sources of water, as you suggest. Indeed, volcanic outgassing is one likely source for the water on our surface, and precambrian sedimentary rocks suggest that such surficial water has existed for quite some time...

However, pressure does not result in an explosion. It would result in implosion, if anything. More likely, it would result in a polymorphic inversion of the crystal lattice. This is getting into petrology, so forgive me this little detour, but I find it interesting... See, some crystals are not very affected by increases in pressure (and are affected mostly by heat). This has been confirmed in laboratory testing under a range of conditions of pressures and heats... This makes them useful geothermometers. Sometimes, it is just the amount of a certain element that increases with heat, as the crystal lattice expands, allowing larger elements into places they originally might not fit. Other minerals are very little effected by heat (mostly affected by pressure), making them good geobarometers. Again, confirmed in labs.
en.wikipedia.org...

Why is this important? Well, experimental petrology (in labs) has determined that ringwoodite would be unstable in significantly higher pressures, and would change to perovskite and oxides. Some of the water can remain in the perovskite, but if some separates and rises, it still wouldn't "explode." It might cause some melt, but really, my point is that geophysicists do not observe an ocean of water in our mantle...
www.nature.com...
www.sciencedirect.com...

As for the California falling into the Pacific thing... That's not how rifting works. The same amount of material is still in the lithospheric block, but a rift might allow for magma to flow upwards, as with the rifting of Pangaea... Interesting side note, I've observed with my own eyes the rift sediments and columnar basalts in NJ of said event. No flood deposits evidenced above the sequence. (Unless you call transgression/regression cycles flooding... Which I wouldn't).

That said, I'm interested in your comment about rain and dew... Do you think there was a period of time when there was no rain in human history? More clearly, do you believe there was a point in human history when there was no rain/dew falling on the Earth in human history? Why would you think this? Is there evidence for such a claim?

As for flood stories, really you've only provided three concrete examples of a flood myth of similarity to the flood in Genesis. The story of Yu was not like the flood in Genesis, but the Sumerian and Babylonian myths (which predate the Hebrew culture, according to historians) are very similar. Is it not more likely that these three (Sumerian, Babylonian, Hebrew) have such a similar story because they are referencing one myth (which might be one real event, mind you) while the others, like Yu's story, are actually unrelated and thus very different? How can we be certain that one story has not simply influenced later stories? (Of course, this does not falsify the biblical account, I'm merely questioning why you assert that because three of four stories are similar that all are of the same event and that some are not indeed from different local floods...) To be more clear, from a literary perspective, why is it not more likely that one myth influenced later myths?

For example, is Romeo and Juliet not a story that heavily borrows on Pyramus and Thisbe? Certainly, Shakespeare even used the story of Pyramus and Thisbe in another work (Midsummer Night's Dream). Of course, even Romeo and Juliet is also based on an older poem... My point is this, from a literary perspective, if two or more stories share similarities, they may indeed be based on the same source, but that doesn't make the source a real event, and even if it were a real event, it does not mean it has not been embellished.
en.wikipedia.org...

And yet, there are many other love stories around unrelated to Romeo and Juliet that are similar to Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps Layla and Majnun would be a good example? Does this prove a common history between the stories? It just proves a common theme. And floods are common to ALL civilizations that live next to rivers/bodies of fresh water... which would have been pretty much any ancient civilization.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Miller-Urey experiment did answer the question of whether organic molecules could form in certain conditions (thought to be the conditions of early Earth, but not important even if they aren't... That just means that these conditions are not necessarily the ones that made organic molecules on Earth) without being made by lifeforms. The answer was yes, it was possible, and indeed probable in those conditions.

Please do not be offended when I say this, but I think you are trying to shoehorn data to fit a preconceived notion that would provide literal credence to biblical claims. I think biblical claims are fine as stories to impart morals, and maybe the God of the bible is the REAL god, but the data and logic you are using are less than satisfactory in my eyes. I've seen rocks from the Precambrian to the Pennsylvanian (I know, I need to see some younger rocks at some point), from Ontario to New Jersey... I have not seen a flood deposit of any significance in any of those rocks.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?


I'm going to respond to this one in particular, because I don't find, with a quick scan, that you have received a correct answer and I think it is a poorly understood concept by those who have difficulty accepting the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES).

First, individuals DO NOT evolve. Populations evolve. This is a very important distinction.

The individual offspring of any given set of parents will have random DNA differences (mutations) from the parents and from each other, caused by replication errors, cosmic ray strikes, chemical imbalances, whatever. That set of random DNA differences from one individual to another is what provides the pool of genetic 'tools'. Not every individual in a generation will have the same mutations nor the same number of mutations. Mutations are completely random. The mutations from one generation to the next are relatively small in number, varying by species, environment, and type of mutation.

From Wikipedia: Mutation Rate

In genetics, the mutation rate is a measure of the rate at which various types of mutations occur over time. Mutation rates are typically given for a specific class of mutation, for instance point mutations, small or large scale insertions or deletions. The rate of substitutions can be further subdivided into a mutation spectrum which describes the influence of genetic context on the mutation rate.

There are several natural units of time for each of these rates, with rates being characterized either as mutations per base pair per cell division, per gene per generation, or per genome per generation. The mutation rate of an organism is an evolved characteristic and is strongly influenced by the genetics of each organism, in addition to strong influence from the environment. The upper and lower limits to which mutation rates can evolve is the subject of ongoing investigation.


Measuring mutation rates is not straight forward: Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Direct Method


There are basically three ways to estimate the mutation rate in the human lineage. I refer to them as the Biochemical Method, the Phylogenetic Method, and the Direct Method.

The Biochemical Method is based on our knowledge of biochemistry and DNA replication as well as estimates of the number of cell divisions between zygote and egg. It gives a value of 130 mutations per generation. The Phylogenetic Method depends on the fact that most mutations are neutral and that the rate of fixation of alleles is equal to the mutation rate. It also relies on a correct phylogeny. The Phylogenetic Method gives values between 112-160 mutations per generation. These two methods are pretty much in agreement.

The Direct Method involves sequencing the entire genomes of related individuals (e.g. mother, father, child) and simply counting the new mutations in the offspring. You might think that the Direct Method gives a definitive result that doesn't rely on any assumptions, therefore it should yield the most accurate result. The other two methods should be irrelevant.

This would be true if the Direct Method were as easy as it sounds but things are more complicated.


The paper goes on to describe the issues with the Direct Method and showing that various researchers have come up with varying results: Xue (2009) found 103 mutations per generation (MpG); Roach (2012) found 70 MpG; Conrad (2011) found 75 MpG in one individual and 56 MpG in another; Kong (2012) found 77 MpG.

There is work to be done to figure out what these varying results mean. Are they artifacts of differing methodology or is one or the other methodology simply more correct?. If the results from the direct method, which are roughly half that of the other two methods, actually more 'correct', what does that mean for other calculations that rely on that number.




As has been mentions many times in many threads, any individual mutation can be good, bad, or neutral.

Bad mutations will prevent the individual from successfully passing that mutation on to future generations: breeding will be prevented perhaps by premature death, simple inability to find a suitable mate, or the offspring will be fewer or less viable than its cousins.

Neutral mutations will not affect breeding in anyway. They just continue to exist in the genetic pool. As the mutated individual breeds normally as the rest of the population, the neutral mutation spreads slowly through the population depending on how the population 'mixes'.

Good mutations spread by increasing the percentage of the population that have that mutation. If an individual without the mutation has 50 offspring and an individual with the mutation has 150 offspring, the mutation has gone from 25% of the population (2 males, 2 females, one mutated individual) to 75% of the population in one generation (of course real populations are usually much bigger than 4 individuals).


edit on 7/9/2014 by rnaa because: fix link markup



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



But if the mutation is reversed, then it is not passed on.


Yes it is. It has to be in order to be said to have existed.

Some 'point mutations' can be reversed in subsequent generations but this is very infrequent. Say a mutation at a particular point in one gene (a point mutation) causes a change in eye color from generation 0 to generation 1. That mutation is passed on for, lets say, 10 generations, then a new mutation occurs at the same gene point that happens to restore the eye color of generation 0. That happens, not very often, but it happens, mutations are random, nothing about random prevents multiple changes at the same point in the same gene. The most recent mutation is passed on, no principle of biology is violated. The mutation has not in fact been "backed out", the gene has merely undergone another mutation, one which happens to appear to restore the function of that gene to some previous state.

More likely though its effects can be 'overridden' by another mutation in a subsequent generation that returns the chemical behavior back to the 'original'. It looks to the outside observer like the original mutation has been reversed, but what has happened, in both cases, is that two different mutations have occurred.


Mutation

(Notes for a Biology Class at College of DuPage in DuPage Illinois)



Mutations can occur in two different directions.

A.
A forward mutation is a mutation which changes a wild type allele into a new allele (for example, a mutation in one of the genes coding for color producing enzymes may change a wild type [normal color] allele into an albino allele).
B.
A true reversion (reverse mutation) is a mutation which changes a mutant allele back into a wild type allele (for example, in the previous example, a reversion would be anohter mutation at exactly the same location of the first mutation, hwich simply reverses the change made the first time, changing the albino allele back into a wild type [normal] allele). As you might expect, true reversions are much less common than forward mutations because the "target area" is much smaller. A typical gene is hundreds of bases long; a forward mutation can be achieved by altering any one of many of those bases. But a reversion must hit exactly the previously altered base, and must alter it in such a way as to change it back to what was originally in that position.
C.
A suppressor mutation seems like a reversion, but is actually a second change in the same gene, at a different site in the gene, which compensates for the forward mutation in the behavior of the gene product. The gene actually now has two differences when compared to the original wild type, but the protein made following its instructions works just like the original, wild type protein.


edit on 7/9/2014 by rnaa because: spelling; sentence structure



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
What was the premise of the experiment in the first place?

Was it not set up to prove abiogenesis? And it failed to prove abiogenesis, so then it cannot be used as a model. So why is it continued to be taught when other experiments can be proven?

How about simply teaching children at the age of learning about science other experiments that are easy to grasp? Why does this one remain? To teach that the atmosphere contains hydrogen?

What is the purpose of promoting this one? Why not the famous experiments of trying to breed chimpanzees and humans? That one failed also, but it isn't taught to most students.


The experiment succeeded. It didn't fail. It proved that organic molecules can form from inorganic molecules under the right conditions. That isn't enough evidence to prove abiogenesis in itself, but it's a step in the right direction. Scientists have been trying to figure out the answer to the origin of life for a while and that's something that most humans have a genuine interest in. It makes sense to teach what we know so far. More recent experiments have also shown that organic compounds can also form from comet impacts. You are nitpicking a science experiment and claiming it shouldn't be taught but then immediately go promoting bible stories as if there is any evidence whatsoever to verify it. Science isn't the big bad wolf. It's a method of fact discovery and I have no idea why you are so against it, while at the same time believing something like the book of genesis with no evidence whatsoever. Something isn't right here.
edit on 7-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Did I ever say that I was against science? Please point me to where I said that.

This is a current myth that all religious people are against science.

All good science is to answer a premise. The hypothesis arises from a person's wandering ideas about some question of higher thought. We see a bee flitting about from flower to flower but issues out sweet golden regurgitation. But we want to know why. While scientists busy themselves with the how, always first was the why.

"What is the universe up to today?" observes the bright eyed scientist as he wipes the honey drip from his chin. "This honey is made of bee vomit, but I like it". To not ask why is the great loss of intellect. We can know many things, such as round rubber tires are better than square wooden wheels. But do we ask why? Because we think we know why, we exclaim "it's for better and more comfortable transportation!" Any child knows as much.

To ask why is a supernatural thought.


”This…whatever it was…has now been joined by another…whatever-it-is… and they are now proceeding in company. Would you mind coming with me, Piglet, in case they turn out to be Hostile Animals?” A.A. Milne in Winnie the Pooh


Bears eat honey because they must, humans eat honey because they may. And that's the difference.


”Then would you read a Sustaining Book, such as would help and comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness?”A.A. Milne in Winnie the Pooh


Oh the great evidence, it is king as I have heard it said. The evidence I have seen is that when men forget who they are inside, they have no purpose for why they are stuck in the tree.

P.S. I noticed the wandering instead of wondering. Both apply in this. To wander means to go about aimlessly, to wonder means to ponder and consider. Many people have wandering thoughts because they try to understand the wondering. It is evident because men think.


edit on 9/7/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

The California thing, that was a soft mocking at the people who have believed it will. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the projections look hopeless. Let's just hope that if it were to happen, people won't feel too bad about the loss of property. We would feel very badly about the loss of life, but the projections have been that it could happen.

When people are warned of the hurricane, not all flee. Some stay and lose their homes, some lose their lives. But we still show sympathy because we are compassionate, even if a bunch of people flagrantly flung their fists at the clouds "The hurricane is no greater than me" and then throw hurricane parties even while boarding up their windows.

Philosophy? No, just an observation of human behavior.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

I need to ask for citation of these claims of the San Andreas fault causing California to fall into the Pacific. I find this claim very difficult to believe, but I am open to any sources of information that might persuade me otherwise.

See, I find it difficult to believe because the San Andreas is a right-lateral strike slip fault, meaning that the plates are moving towards the right when an observer is on one plate looking at the other... This image might help.
nationalatlas.gov...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman
edit on 7-9-2014 by hydeman11 because: *original link broken



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

I need to ask for citation of these claims of the San Andreas fault causing California to fall into the Pacific. I find this claim very difficult to believe, but I am open to any sources of information that might persuade me otherwise.

See, I find it difficult to believe because the San Andreas is a right-lateral strike slip fault, meaning that the plates are moving towards the right when an observer is on one plate looking at the other... This image might help.
nationalatlas.gov...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman


Hydeman,

I didn't say I believed it, I was just saying that people have been projecting it for as long as I have known. I was trying to show how skeptical I was of that claim. It's a pop culture idea.

Will California? You know the urban legend always concludes with "scientists say". Maybe some scientist a long time ago might have, but really, there are people who believe it will happen, then they project the cost to life and property.

But there are volcanoes in California, I think I would be more nervous of that instead.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Wow, I had no idea people actually believed that... Forgive me my exasperation and incredulity on that matter. I live on the East Coast and I've not actually heard that "urban legend" (for lack of a better word, yes) before. You learn something new everyday, even if it is sad fact.

I suppose this does illustrate just how very poor the communication between the scientific community and the general public is. Although, with the ready availability of that information on the internet, perhaps it is not a matter of communication, but a matter of willingness to seek that information and evidence that is contrary to our long held beliefs about a matter?

I thought you were merely asking about theoretical rifting along a plate boundary earlier, so again, thank you for enlightening me to this issue.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.


I had a lot to say, but didn't want to seem too aggressive, so I will just say this...

Thank you for the common approach. I am sure with your help I will learn to see the world the way that you.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Did I ever say that I was against science? Please point me to where I said that.

This is a current myth that all religious people are against science.


You don't have to directly say it, you have dismissed and deflected scientific data on more than one occasion. It's not a myth because every time a point is brought up against you, you change the subject, which is fallacious in itself. You also quote scientific studies that directly go against your claims. I'm not trying to be mean or belittle you, but you have been diverting rather than addressing the points or evidence directly for this entire thread and have changed the subject numerous times.

I very specifically asked you about the experiment and why you think it shouldn't be taught in schools and you haven't answered the question. You went off on a tangent about honey and "wandering" thoughts. Your answer only shows evidence for my premise that you are indeed against science, and searching hard for anything you can find to support this, regardless of how presumptuous it may be.

Science is about the how. Asking why is philosophy because there may not be an answer to that question, many folks want there to be, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to force in whatever answer you want or that your answer over rides science. A hypothesis is an educated guess, usually based on prior evidence.

Scientists don't just go, "hmmmmm. That sounds really nifty! Let's test for it!!!" Most hypotheses are based on previous theories and experiments.


Bears eat honey because they must, humans eat honey because they may. And that's the difference.


False. Bears eat honey because they like the taste. They certainly don't have to. Most bear species "barely" eat honey at all. Sorry but "Winnie the Pooh" isn't evidence of anything.

www.adfg.alaska.gov...



Yes. Bears do love honey and are attracted to beehives. But unlike in Winnie the Pooh, the bears eat more than just honey. They will also consume the bees and larvae inside the beehive, which are a good source of protein. Both brown and black bears will raid beehives.

Unlike Winnie the Pooh, real bears don’t only eat honey. Polar bears eat mostly fat and meat, including seals and other marine mammals. Grizzly and black bears eat mostly vegetation, insects, berries, and meat, especially salmon and young moose, caribou and deer.


Honey is a very small part of most bears diets and again is completely irrelevant to anything we were discussing previously.

Plus science can answer the why for MANY questions. Why do humans enjoy honey? It stimulates the taste buds that sense the "sweet" taste. Nerve ending in the tongue transmit this signal to the brain. That is indeed an answer to the why. It's quite obvious that you WANT there to be a supernatural answer to "why" questions that you are posing, but again there isn't evidence of any such cause, it is simply wishful thinking. Unfortunately there is no current known answer to the "meaning" of life, but that doesn't mean there is a supernatural answer or that we'll never know the answer. Scientific knowledge is evolving.
edit on 8-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao




what the hell does that even mean?

i hit you in the face every monday at 10am, how will that make you evolve?

if i kill you the first time, same question.



Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: slip2break




This was an exchange I had with my wife a few years ago. She is the self describe "die hard scientific based realist."


No she isn't.

From that anecdote, she is unimaginative and unromantic. Good scientists are neither.



Hell a few days ago she was laying on my car hood resting after a bit of gardening. According to her, this was the first time in her life she noticed just how captivating the occasional white fluffy cloud looked against the deep blue of the sky.


As I suspected, there is more to your wife than someone who just couldn't be bothered with sunsets. Perhaps she is too absorbed in other things to notice. There are lots of people like that, and have been for ever. It is time honored advice to such people to "stop and smell the roses" on occasion.

Scientists are, as a rule, not in that category. Of course there are people focused on their work to the exclusion of all else, but in general, knowing what goes into a good sunset makes them even more awe inspiring.
edit on 7/9/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join