I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Ok explain to me HOW God created all the animals on the planet, then created man and woman, then created all the animals on the planet, then created woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

Because frankly, what I just typed there makes ZERO sense and I would love to know how that is possible.

it is a follow up... and continues after.

a refresher if you will, they do it in class all the time.

When they do it in class they repeat the same order events not change them around. So no this isn't the same thing. Please try again.

your lack of understanding it doesn't weaken anything... you might want to read more?

it's a precursor then... just like a school teacher does.

AGAIN the order of events are changed around from the first part to the second. This DOESN'T happen in a classroom setting unless the teacher has some sort of agenda or is an extremely poor teacher (probably both). When you introduce a topic and with the introduction you provide an order of events, you don't change the order of events the next time you talk about it. If you have gone to classes that do this, then maybe I can start to see why you created this thread. You should try some different schools.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

It also doesn't matter what the OP thinks on the matter either

WOW, dude !

Very typical, carry on....

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

As has been explained to me many, many times by posters at ATS abiogenesis and evolution are two very separate topics. And I will agree scientifically they are, but to the average person developing or holding various belief patterns they are not, they are inextricably linked culturally with belief systems, following closely behind is theism, agnosticism, and atheism based on their perspective of the total package of abiogenesis and evolution together.

So because laypeople refuse to learn the difference between the two concepts and that they aren't related together, it makes it permissible to talk about one when talking about the other? That is absurd and not to mention completely misrepresents science. It also allows for idiot Creationists to keep misrepresenting Evolution in a vain effort to disprove it. If you are ignorant of an idea, you shouldn't be speaking about it. Letting Abiogenesis and Evolution be mixed together as some sort of unified theory is displaying HUGE ignorance.

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

It also doesn't matter what the OP thinks on the matter either

WOW, dude !

Very typical, carry on....

Quote mining me won't increase the veracity of your claims. You and I both know that there is more to that quote then what you just displayed and if the rest of it were to show up, would show a completely different view.

Here let's show more of what I was saying (including the rest of the sentence that you clipped off) so that posters who don't read the whole thread get the wrong idea (which you are trying to present).

Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of Evolution, so it is useless to compare it to Evolution. It also doesn't matter what the OP thinks on the matter either, because the above remains true. To combine the two is disingenuous. You might as well have said, "well String Theory is unproven, and since we cannot prove that theory, Evolution is therefore unproven."

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Perhaps you can't understand this concept yet. I will put it as simply as I can this time.
The combined view of both abiogenesis and evolution effects a persons belief system.
Regardless if they separate them or join them.

Krazysh0t
AGAIN the order of events are changed around from the first part to the second.

so what do we have in the classroom?

you have the elementary school teacher starting us off by saying man evolved...

then they proceed to show and tell you how.

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Perhaps you can't understand this concept yet. I will put it as simply as I can this time.
The combined view of both abiogenesis and evolution effects a persons belief system.
Regardless if they separate them or join them.

not really effects it for me or throws it into doubt... combining them strengthens Biogenesis.

Couldn't a meteor shower introduce the right catalyst to spark abiogenesis?

reply to post by SisyphusRide


But they don't introduce a topic by saying W happened X happened then Y happened then Z happened. Then when they elaborate on the topic say Y happened then X happened then W happened then Z happened.

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Perhaps you can't understand this concept yet. I will put it as simply as I can this time.
The combined view of both abiogenesis and evolution effects a persons belief system.
Regardless if they separate them or join them.

So what? Science doesn't deal in belief systems. It deals in facts and educated guesses. Belief systems have no reason to be discussed in a science class.

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Perhaps you can't understand this concept yet. I will put it as simply as I can this time.
The combined view of both abiogenesis and evolution effects a persons belief system.
Regardless if they separate them or join them.

Bingo.

When the believers of the many cults of Darwin get cornered and have no choice but to admit that abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis with very little evidence to support it, they try to backtrack and make the debate about evolution as described by Gregor Mendel.

But that's not the issue. The issue is how modern academia uses evolution, and they use it to promote competition and individualism over cooperation.
(this would, hypothetically, be a great divide an conquer tactic)

Any type of social cooperation and cohesion that was promoted by the church is now seen as poo because natural selection is the mechanism driving change, the mechanism of life.
And if natural selection is in charge then we just shut up and take what we get.
If life is an individual competition, then the losers have no recourse, but the problem with this line of reasoning is that the game of life is rigged and most of us are on the losing end.

And the reason for this is exactly as you have said.
Most people don't differentiate between the two concepts. They believe abiogenesis is a theory like gravity because they associate it with evolution.
They believe in competition over cooperation, which will always favor the elite.
And they believe this because of the way that modern academia uses evolution.

"Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma."

www.apologeticspress.org...

AfterInfinity
Couldn't a meteor shower introduce the right catalyst to spark abiogenesis?

It's not about simple catalysis.

The problem with the meteor conjecture is that life needs a catalyst that can create a hypercycle.
Already existing components of life are currently the only known products able to catalyze a hypercycle.

This is the essence of the biogenesis theory as was validated by Louis Pasteur.

Only life can create life.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Hmm. Well, I can't say I have the educational background to effectively argue a hypothesis on those grounds. I do, however, have the brains to say that any answers being proposed here better be damned good ones or I reserve the right to politely cough and wait for the proper moment to excuse myself.

SisyphusRide
"Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma."

www.apologeticspress.org...

Humans aren't perfect. Not everyone forms opinions based on sound evidence. This being said, of course there are going to be some pro-evolutionists who say stuff like that. Being that Abiogenesis is the most popular explanation on how life emerged, I can see how they'd make this mistake. But they are doing a disservice to Evolution. These two things need to be decoupled. By coupling them, it creates a large hole in the theory that allows Creationists to attack it.

kyviecaldges

helldiver

kyviecaldges

peter vlar
reply to post by tadaman

 

No but a wolf and a dog are different species with the wolf being the common ancestor of all current dog breeds.

Bad example because that is NOT due to natural selection.

That is due to domestication. Very big difference. And depending on who you ask dogs are classified as Canis Familiaris or Canis Lupus Familiaris with the Familiaris being a subspecies of the species Lupus.

Either way the genus is the same.

The wolf is not some kind of common ancestor.

edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

The gray wolf is 100% the common ancestor of dogs regardless of artificial selection. Natural selection may also have played a part.

The gray wolf and the dog is the exact same animal.
They can interbreed. Their genetics are the exact same.
What happened with dogs is no different than what Mendel proved with fruit flies.
Animals of the same genus can interbreed, and the ability to interbreed is what truly distinguishes species.

As I have said before, DNA is simply a template. If you were to sequence every single strand of DNA for (insert animal here) then you would simply have a list of possibilities.
That list doesn't change over time.
DNA can only change, and thus the template of possibilities, through mutations.
Genetic drift is speculated to be the cause of certain traits supposedly disappearing, but what may be happening is simply a response to the environment through epigenetics. This would then continually repress the expression of certain phenotypes.

The only thing that can create genetic variation is a mutation.

I actually have a question for you on this.

If natural selection is a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare, then why the sudden explosion in breast cancer rates?
Individuals most certainly have a genetic predisposition to this.
Why has it blown up so suddenly?
Shouldn't it have disappeared by now due to genetic drift?

It is all speculation.

edit on 4/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

I get what you're saying about the genus and sub species, correct. I'd argue that their genetics are exactly the same however. My poing was that domestic dogs, foxes and coyotes all share common ancestry with European gray wolves though. The term common ancestor is still applicable to domesticated dogs.

www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/38279/title/Origin-of-Domestic-Dogs/

I'm honestly not up to speed on the rates of breast cancer in humans, i'd need to read up. I'd take a wild shot at guessing that a greatly reduced selection pressure in modern humans has something to do with it. Just a guess though.

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide
"Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma."

www.apologeticspress.org...

Humans aren't perfect. Not everyone forms opinions based on sound evidence. This being said, of course there are going to be some pro-evolutionists who say stuff like that. Being that Abiogenesis is the most popular explanation on how life emerged, I can see how they'd make this mistake. But they are doing a disservice to Evolution. These two things need to be decoupled. By coupling them, it creates a large hole in the theory that allows Creationists to attack it.

I really enjoy this post, because it finally admits what I have been saying for years on ATS, only this time it actually comes from a supporter of Abiogenesis and Evolution itself. In a court of law I would be saying right about now, "I rest my case". And anybody that has been following the logic of my posts in this thread can see it. I actually gave this post a star for it's brutal honesty, so thank you.

kyviecaldges
Bingo.

When the believers of the many cults of Darwin get cornered and have no choice but to admit that abiogenesis is a mere hypothesis with very little evidence to support it, they try to backtrack and make the debate about evolution as described by Gregor Mendel.

I disagree here. I never studied under nor worked with anyone who posited any thought other than that abiogenesis was still in the hypothesis stage. It's a good explanation based on what we currently know but anyone doing any kind of science is well aware that there is no clear empirical evidence right now.

But that's not the issue. The issue is how modern academia uses evolution, and they use it to promote competition and individualism over cooperation.
(this would, hypothetically, be a great divide an conquer tactic)

Not trying to be a smart @## but do you have any examples of this? Any job I've ever had required cooperation as opposed to competition. Had that been the way things worked in the army I'd be dead long ago.

Any type of social cooperation and cohesion that was promoted by the church is now seen as poo because natural selection is the mechanism driving change, the mechanism of life.

The church is not known for historically promoting social cooperation. It's known for its subjugation of the masses to the detriment if the poor and the benefit of their local patrons. That's not to say the church should be utterly villainized because they did do some good occasionally and without the church there would have been no education at all for a few hundred years. I don't think that when the average person is making life decisions that they sit back and try to factor in how natural selection is going to au a role in their choice. They're far too worried about whether or not Kim Kardashian is wearing panties under her dress or not.

And if natural selection is in charge then we just shut up and take what we get.
If life is an individual competition, then the losers have no recourse, but the problem with this line of reasoning is that the game of life is rigged and most of us are on the losing end.

and how is academia promoting those as the only options? In this view its an And/Or proposition when I think we know most
People aren't myopic enough to give that much thought.

And the reason for this is exactly as you have said.
Most people don't differentiate between the two concepts. They believe abiogenesis is a theory like gravity because they associate it with evolution.
They believe in competition over cooperation, which will always favor the elite.
And they believe this because of the way that modern academia uses evolution.

I sympathize with your ire towards our current education system, particularly so as a parent of 3 children in primary school. But it seems as tgough there are some blanket statements and all inclusive catch alls that may not be pertinent to real world applications. remember, as parents it ultimate falls to us to make sure our children are imparted with the knowledge we feel most important for them to learn and we are the balancing act between what the
State wants to teach and what we as individuals feel to be important. Even my 11 year old knows the difference between abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. It's up to us to teach them the difference between sitting on your behind and taking what life hands you versus working hard and making good choices. Evolutionary theory is about a mechanism not about how we live our lives. We are all still individuals and have free will whether we believe it is innate or imparted on us by an omniscient deity is irrelevant. Though I should add that I disagree that people believe any if this because of how academia "uses" evolution as I've never seen abiogenesis taught as part of evolutionary theory. Perhaps its a regional education thing?

reply to post by peter vlar


This absolutely comes down to education.

And that is my entire point.

You want examples of how a belief in competition is promoted by academia through abiogenesis over the cooperation of the church?
I believe that I covered it in a previous post, but I will give it a go again.

First and foremost the idea of natural selection and abiogenesis gave rise to the ideas of social darwinism and eugenics. Eugenics doesn't exist unless we firmly believe that we understand the mechanism of evolution.
And now that we pretend to understand it, we can go about artificially decommissioning natural selection by employing the beliefs of eugenics, but yet we make the ignorant believe that taking control of natural selection is actually the result of natural selection.

Things like war and collateral damage are much easier to accept if life is no longer sacred but the result of a happy accident, because we then become the victors in the competition of natural selection.

The church is not innocent by any far stretch, but at the very least, prior to being neutered into the 501c3 category, the protestant church was the most active anti-war protestor around.
Of course now they can't mention politics because then they would be taxed on all those donations.

Think about the changes that have taken place since 1900...
What about the law?

In 1938 the entire code of procedure was rewritten to combine courts of equity(contract) and common law(criminal) into one jurisdiction.
This then allowed for the creation of codes that control us through compelled behavior and the reason that this happened is because the state became the foundation for our morals instead of the church.

Prior to that, no one could be forced to do anything.
Seat belt laws would have never flown because in order to violate a crime a victim was needed.
That is the essence of a common law system. And no statutes denoting what was legal or illegal were needed.
Someone brought charges against another individual and a grand jury decided if it was heard in a jury trial.
The state didn't bring cases against anyone.
The reason for this is because the only real laws on the books were the ten commandments and when someone was accused of a criminal act it was because they violated one of the ten commandments.

But enter 1900 and Charles Darwin and everything changed.
His hypothesis has been used since jump to dismantle the church, which good or bad was the foundation for our morals.
That is why the founding fathers separated church and state.

The church was the foundation for our morals and the state made sure that we did not violate anyone's morals.

But if you combine the two then you get an unstoppable machine of tyranny.

Law is not about fairness any longer. It's about who has the most money.

And we accept this as okay because we are taught in school that the nature of life is a competition and only the strongest survive because natural selection weeds out those who can't make it.
Even if the only reason they can't make it, or they can't get equal justice, is because they are poor.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar

 

This absolutely comes down to education.

And that is my entire point.

You want examples of how a belief in competition is promoted by academia through abiogenesis over the cooperation of the church?
I believe that I covered it in a previous post, but I will give it a go again.

First and foremost the idea of natural selection and abiogenesis gave rise to the ideas of social darwinism and eugenics. Eugenics doesn't exist unless we firmly believe that we understand the mechanism of evolution.

Eugenics is a perversion of Evolution. People who propose social dawinism or eugenics are terrible people. However it isn't evolution's fault that they do this. These people would be terrible people regardless of what they could or couldn't use to justify their terrible actions. Without evolution, they'd hide behind church doctrine and decrees to perform their atrocities. For example, the Spanish Inquisition. Terrible people started and executed that purge of Jews using church doctrine to justify their actions. Just like eugenics is a perversion of evolutionary theory, so was the Spanish Inquisition a perversion of church doctrine.

And now that we pretend to understand it, we can go about artificially decommissioning natural selection by employing the beliefs of eugenics, but yet we make the ignorant believe that taking control of natural selection is actually the result of natural selection.

The only people advocating this are the same ones that have been abusing and subjugating the populous since we hopped out of the trees. You are just using evolution as the new bogeyman.

Things like war and collateral damage are much easier to accept if life is no longer sacred but the result of a happy accident, because we then become the victors in the competition of natural selection.

People have been rationalizing and accepting war since forever. What is the first bit of propaganda that a country issues to rile up their population against their enemy? They dehumanize the enemy. None of this is anything new within the last 113 years or so.

The church is not innocent by any far stretch, but at the very least, prior to being neutered into the 501c3 category, the protestant church was the most active anti-war protestor around.
Of course now they can't mention politics because then they would be taxed on all those donations.

Think about the changes that have taken place since 1900...
What about the law?

In 1938 the entire code of procedure was rewritten to combine courts of equity(contract) and common law(criminal) into one jurisdiction.
This then allowed for the creation of codes that control us through compelled behavior and the reason that this happened is because the state became the foundation for our morals instead of the church.

The reason that happened is because lobbyists on the behest of rich corporate interests bought out our legislators and started writing the laws for them so that they'd benefit the rich. Again nothing to do with America's morals.

Prior to that, no one could be forced to do anything.

Unless you were a slave, then you could be forced to do anything that your owner wanted you to do. Oh but that's right, the bible condones slavery in it, so I guess that doesn't count as immoral.

Seat belt laws would have never flown because in order to violate a crime a victim was needed.
That is the essence of a common law system. And no statutes denoting what was legal or illegal were needed.
Someone brought charges against another individual and a grand jury decided if it was heard in a jury trial.
The state didn't bring cases against anyone.
The reason for this is because the only real laws on the books were the ten commandments and when someone was accused of a criminal act it was because they violated one of the ten commandments.

The Ten Commandments? Really? So if I were to live in the 19th century, if I were to worship another god I'd go to jail? Because that is a violation of the Ten Commandments. Or maybe you are referring to the Golden Rule, which is a lot simpler and doesn't have any religious nonsense tied to it.

But enter 1900 and Charles Darwin and everything changed.
His hypothesis has been used since jump to dismantle the church, which good or bad was the foundation for our morals.
That is why the founding fathers separated church and state.

The church isn't dismantled. I don't know what reality you live in, but the one I live in 78.4% of Americans currently identify as some denomination of Christianity. That isn't dismantled in my book by any stretch of the imagination.

The church was the foundation for our morals and the state made sure that we did not violate anyone's morals.

Morals don't come from religions. The Golden Rule doesn't need a religion to spread itself, it should come naturally to anyone with a working brain that if they didn't like being hurt then chances are that the person next to them doesn't either.

But if you combine the two then you get an unstoppable machine of tyranny.

Law is not about fairness any longer. It's about who has the most money.

And we accept this as okay because we are taught in school that the nature of life is a competition and only the strongest survive because natural selection weeds out those who can't make it.
Even if the only reason they can't make it, or they can't get equal justice, is because they are poor.

Our society is based on capitalism, it has been bastardized and corrupted by greedy rich people. While the tenants of capitalism are similar to evolution, they aren't the same. You are mixing them up.