To those who don't accept evolution, but do accept the scientific method...

I would like to ask a question of those who, for whatever reason, do not accept evolution as a valid explanation for the diversity of life today. If you use...

televisions, microwaves, computers, cars, medications, electricity, gas, health care, refrigerators, mobile phones, dentists, cameras, synthetic clothing etc (the list is far to long to continue)

...it suggests that you accept the scientific method.

My question... which part of the application of the scientific method to explain the diversity of life do you disagree with.

(please don't use the 2nd law of thermodynamics - here's why (go to 43m38s, and watch for 5 minutes):



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MarsIsRed

I think you've got something interesting started here, but I will admit to being so confused that I can't comment intelligently.

Are you saying that mankind has invented a vast array of different products by using his mind, therefore, the vast array of life forms on earth is explained by a form of evolution?

Are you saying that the scientific method has been essential to modern life, and creationism can only be accepted by disregarding part of the scientific method?

Please forgive my confusion.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
Are you saying that mankind has invented a vast array of different products by using his mind, therefore, the vast array of life forms on earth is explained by a form of evolution?

No, of course not!

Perhaps you misunderstand differing opinions to your own.

Evolution is simple, beautiful and great.

reply to post by MarsIsRed

Dear MarsIsRed,

Perhaps you misunderstand differing opinions to your own.

That's possible. But if it's true, isn't it even more important for me to understand other's opinions by getting things clarified?

As another example, I was confused by the video you asked us to watch. Suggesting that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was important to the discussion. What the video told me was that entropy is increasing, and that the eventual fate of the Universe, providing nothing miraculous or outside of the science we know now occurs, is the heat death. OK, I knew that. But how does that apply?

If entropy is increasing, one can infer a time when there was no entropy, perhaps just before the Big Bang, when there was something of infinitely powerful structure. That "Cosmic Egg" exploded for some reason. Science has not yet explained how the Cosmic Egg came into existence or why it exploded. (At least as far as I know.)

The video also says that humans are able to take in food and our bodies can turn it to necessary energy or nutrition. It points out that we are able to make devices able to do the same thing.

I have no idea how that speaks to the question of evolution. We have bodies, we can do those things, but how we got those bodies doesn't seem to be addressed in the video.

Honestly, I'm not trying to argue with you. At this point I have no desire to refute or support what you're saying. Truly, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. I get it that you like the idea of evolution, but that hardly seems surprising, or even something that can be discussed. Many people like it, many people don't. So?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


What was being attempted to explain in the video is that the usual reply from a stereotypical "creationist" is to argue that evolution defies the 2nd law but that it is not true. That while yes, entropy is real and the general order devolving into disorder is a truism as a whole, that when discussing things on a smaller scale in geologic terms that the very chaos is what gives us the miraculous diversity we currently have thriving on earth. On paper it looks a mess but the chaos is what leads to things like tall skinny East Africans or short pudgy Asians. It gives us a wide degree of variation within a given species that will allow at least part of a given population to survive so,e massive ecological or perhaps astronomical disaster. Take the fox for example. If the earth heated up say an average of 5 degrees, that would severely impact the habitat of the arctic fox yet the kit fox and possibly the red fox would be unaffected. If I can make it more clear please let me know and I'll do my best.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


Mainstream science is still doing much good science as long as it operates outside , what’s political acceptable and correct. That is the main problem with mainstream science today. It is controlled by a political establishment which have a political agenda , and thus they pretty much controls all kind of experimenting and what the scientists can mean . Herein lies the big problem.

Another problem is in my opinion , the way much of how mainstream science operates today. I miss the methods and the way science was done before the computers invaded and hijacked it all. In those days scientific experiments was successfully executed with few resources and , little money , but with lots of patience, and strong will to find answers. Today 95% of the scientists sits behind a computer , running simulations.

Take for instance a look at SCERN and their baby, The Large Hadron Collider . It’s basically a multimillion dollar toy, where thousands of mainstream scientists can play all day, achieving nothing. Nothing has ever come out of it , and nothing will ever do either. It’s a complete waste of money and resources. Even when they failed to locate the sub atomic ghost particles that they have been chasing for years, and everybody knew that the entire experiment was a total fiasco, they would not admit it. Instead they claims that they think they (probably) saw some traces after this particle, and therefore it might (probably) exist. What kind of science is this?. Everybody knew the experiment was a total disaster, but instead of admitting it, they try to cover it up. That’s what’s the problem with mainstream science today. To much falsifying and manipulations. As long as all their theories are wrong. There are no way they can construct experiments to ever prove them.

But to change all this, we don’t need new scientists. We basically need new politicians who allow new ideas to come foreward.

reply to post by MarsIsRed

because in the next ten years ( if iy hasent been done already) we will construct some form of life outside of us

there by proving intellegent design of life, and it wont be perfect.

and the more complex we make it thr more space we will need and thr more bugs will crop up in the code and thr longer it will take us to makeour biological visions perfect.


on a scale frpm micro to cosmic. and we may still never get it right.

but we will leave our mark in thr code (3.14) for others to find

meanwhile evolution as an origin of life talking point will die.

rightfully so


and we can all move on with real science ( creation of new life) and forget the faith (evolution)

Another_Nut
meanwhile evolution as an origin of life talking point will die.

rightfully so


and we can all move on with real science ( creation of new life) and forget the faith (evolution)

I think you are confusing evolution and abiogenesis. Two separate fields of study. Both of which are also "real" science.

reply to post by peter vlar

Dear peter vlar,

Thank you very much for the explanation. I see that I did misunderstand MarsIsRed's OP. Many people aren't familiar with the word "Entropy," but after the concept is explained, I'm fairly certain that anyone, regardless of opinions on other matters, would accept that entropy can be reversed in a local system temporarily, and at the cost of greater entropy elsewhere.

If I had to summarize the OP now, I think I would say "Evolution can be supported by science, and the argument from the 2nd law does not contradict it." Depending on the meaning of "supported," I think anyone could agree with that.

I think the OP overreaches a bit when he brings in the Scientific Method. As far as I understand it, neither Evolution nor Creationism can be proven by application of the regimen of experiments which would be required. Further, Evolution and Creationism can co-exist if one grants that Creationism is the cause of life and perhaps it's first basic forms, then Evolution modifies those forms.

It's not a particularly interesting argument for me. Physicists don't know how the Universe was formed, and they don't know how life was created on Earth. It seems like our task is to consider what evidence is available and decide for ourselves which is more persuasive.

With respect,
Charles1952

I hear all the time that there can be order in small parts of a chaotic system. But how and why? What examples do we have of this ever occurring outside life? Here's what we see; a universe or multiverse ruled by the second law of thermodynamics. Inside this multiverse we have an extreme case of order, called life. Why do we assume the chaos of the universe allows for life, randomly?

reply to post by peter vlar


no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

peter vlar

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

well lets start with your (false) assumption i believe i have a lord or savoir.

even though i have not mentioned either you jump to these so you dont have to defend your (false) beliefs and instead attack a straw man or "savior"

faith, yours, muslim, or christian, just breeds intolerance and stupidity. stiffing creative thought in favor of regurgitation of the status quo .

so you are saying that if we as humans design and create a new form of life , and can observe and repeat the experiments that led to that life

then we have not just proven id exists, is observable , is testable , and is repeatable.

meanwhile evolution stays a "theory" . a theory that is none of the above and can (almsot/maybe/whoknowsitsabiguniverse) never be observed ,tested,or repeated.


see how you attack some others "savoir" with your own when confronted with the uncomfortable truth,
that id will soon be testable and repeatable (if it hasent been done already)

now please address something other than someone else s boogyman

reply to post by Another_Nut


Oh golly..

*says he isn't confusing abiogenesis with evolution. goes on to say they're both the same*

and that's why people post memes about this.

Another_Nut

peter vlar

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

well lets start with your (false) assumption i believe i have a lord or savoir.

even though i have not mentioned either you jump to these so you dont have to defend your (false) beliefs and instead attack a straw man or "savior"

faith, yours, muslim, or christian, just breeds intolerance and stupidity. stiffing creative thought in favor of regurgitation of the status quo .

so you are saying that if we as humans design and create a new form of life , and can observe and repeat the experiments that led to that life

then we have not just proven id exists, is observable , is testable , and is repeatable.

meanwhile evolution stays a "theory" . a theory that is none of the above and can (almsot/maybe/whoknowsitsabiguniverse) never be observed ,tested,or repeated.


see how you attack some others "savoir" with your own when confronted with the uncomfortable truth,
that id will soon be testable and repeatable (if it hasent been done already)

now please address something other than someone else s boogyman

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Ill just get this bit out of the way first in case you weren't crystal clear about "theory" in a scientific context....happens quite a bit around these boards....

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Evolution, It's all around you....I'm not going to link the thousands of proof positive examples, but here's a random one you may not have considered....

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please be so kind as to also explain Anti-biotic resistance, without evolution....good luck....

www.sciencedaily.com...

As for creating life from scratch in a laboratory (which may indeed be possible at some point), why would that be proof of ID?
As the fictional power of deities (creators) is not something we can bring into a laboratory environment (because its not real), wouldn't the controlled creation of life by artificial means prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that its a naturally occurring phenomenon?
Afterall, all science is a study of the natural universe. We can't do magic
You seem to think that by science creating life it would confirm ID, but in reality it would completely and permanently destroy the concept.

My two cents....

winofiend
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Oh golly..

*says he isn't confusing abiogenesis with evolution. goes on to say they're both the same*

and that's why people post memes about this.

my gosh i will say it again !

reading comprehension sucks on ats

please reread what i said.

understand.

apologize

(btw all yiu evolutionary geniuses why even bring that tired evolutionary bs here to the origins and creation forum?

since u need abiogenisis (magic ) to actually get evolution (faith) aka evolution isnt the origin or a creator of life,just what happens after life starts therefore not even equal to id since they describe two different things

yet you all yell evolution > id, when you dont even know what you are arguing)

Artlogic

Another_Nut

peter vlar

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

well lets start with your (false) assumption i believe i have a lord or savoir.

even though i have not mentioned either you jump to these so you dont have to defend your (false) beliefs and instead attack a straw man or "savior"

faith, yours, muslim, or christian, just breeds intolerance and stupidity. stiffing creative thought in favor of regurgitation of the status quo .

so you are saying that if we as humans design and create a new form of life , and can observe and repeat the experiments that led to that life

then we have not just proven id exists, is observable , is testable , and is repeatable.

meanwhile evolution stays a "theory" . a theory that is none of the above and can (almsot/maybe/whoknowsitsabiguniverse) never be observed ,tested,or repeated.


see how you attack some others "savoir" with your own when confronted with the uncomfortable truth,
that id will soon be testable and repeatable (if it hasent been done already)

now please address something other than someone else s boogyman

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Ill just get this bit out of the way first in case you weren't crystal clear about "theory" in a scientific context....happens quite a bit around these boards....

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Evolution, It's all around you....I'm not going to link the thousands of proof positive examples, but here's a random one you may not have considered....

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Please be so kind as to also explain Anti-biotic resistance, without evolution....good luck....

www.sciencedaily.com...

As for creating life from scratch in a laboratory (which may indeed be possible at some point), why would that be proof of ID?
As the fictional power of deities (creators) is not something we can bring into a laboratory environment (because its not real), wouldn't the controlled creation of life by artificial means prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that its a naturally occurring phenomenon?
Afterall, all science is a study of the natural universe. We can't do magic

You seem to think that by science creating life it would confirm ID, but in reality it would completely and permanently destroy the concept.

My two cents....

edit on 17 2013 by Artlogic because: It wasn't aliens either....

first what does intelligence or design have to do with a diety?

humans think and design all the time.

if we create life is that not intelligent design and creation (no deity needed ty)

get off your anti-god kick and lets discuss this

Another_Nut

peter vlar

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

well lets start with your (false) assumption i believe i have a lord or savoir.

even though i have not mentioned either you jump to these so you dont have to defend your (false) beliefs and instead attack a straw man or "savior"

faith, yours, muslim, or christian, just breeds intolerance and stupidity. stiffing creative thought in favor of regurgitation of the status quo .

so you are saying that if we as humans design and create a new form of life , and can observe and repeat the experiments that led to that life

then we have not just proven id exists, is observable , is testable , and is repeatable.

meanwhile evolution stays a "theory" . a theory that is none of the above and can (almsot/maybe/whoknowsitsabiguniverse) never be observed ,tested,or repeated.


see how you attack some others "savoir" with your own when confronted with the uncomfortable truth,
that id will soon be testable and repeatable (if it hasent been done already)

now please address something other than someone else s boogyman

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the laugh. I rather enjoyed your mockery of others for their lack of reading comprehension which is clearly a case of hating what you are. I was clear that I was making an assumption and simply asked you to correct or clarify. You then launch into the attack you perceived upon yourself. If you're not a Christian you should consider joining up. You've got the persecution complex down pat! Remember, even an ostrich has to come up for air and shake the sand out of its ears. Give it a try sometime instead of creating your own straw man that ID will soon be testable. I may soon have a bowel movement but it doesn't mean a damned thing until it actually happens. Your attempt to correlate a human creating a machine as evidence of an intelligent designer for humans is laughable at best. Enjoy your weekend and your delusions.

peter vlar

Another_Nut

peter vlar

Another_Nut
reply to post by peter vlar

 

no sir i dont think i am

i think i just proved using the scientific method (mainly repeatable expeiment) why (hopefully soon) id is science fact while evolution remains sone fanciful theory

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was construct a scenario with a predetermined outcome. You have run no experiment thus it is not a verifiable or repeatable process

abiogenisis is just like evolution, bs. it was msde up to expain major flaws in a silly theory for thr human centric.

The human centric? Is that a fanciful way of saying that only those who accept your lord and savior know the truth and some of us hate your god so much that we will now use science to denounce him? For such an omnipotent being he seems to have really thin skin if a bunch of heathens rile him up so much.

not repeatable or testable. faith

unlike id

Please, feel free to give examples then. I'd love to see a testable hypothesis of ID

eta

not repeatble or testable until we (intellegently) rewrite our code inoder (lol) to overcome sone of our design limitations

make it to another sun and watch the planet form, cosmic soup form and life arise (which it shiuld do the same on all planets that give rise to life.)

or we could make our own soup.bur that requires id lol

edit on 16-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

This is some serious grasping at straws here but best of luck with all that!

well lets start with your (false) assumption i believe i have a lord or savoir.

even though i have not mentioned either you jump to these so you dont have to defend your (false) beliefs and instead attack a straw man or "savior"

faith, yours, muslim, or christian, just breeds intolerance and stupidity. stiffing creative thought in favor of regurgitation of the status quo .

so you are saying that if we as humans design and create a new form of life , and can observe and repeat the experiments that led to that life

then we have not just proven id exists, is observable , is testable , and is repeatable.

meanwhile evolution stays a "theory" . a theory that is none of the above and can (almsot/maybe/whoknowsitsabiguniverse) never be observed ,tested,or repeated.


see how you attack some others "savoir" with your own when confronted with the uncomfortable truth,
that id will soon be testable and repeatable (if it hasent been done already)

now please address something other than someone else s boogyman

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the laugh. I rather enjoyed your mockery of others for their lack of reading comprehension which is clearly a case of hating what you are. I was clear that I was making an assumption and simply asked you to correct or clarify. You then launch into the attack you perceived upon yourself. If you're not a Christian you should consider joining up. You've got the persecution complex down pat! Remember, even an ostrich has to come up for air and shake the sand out of its ears. Give it a try sometime instead of creating your own straw man that ID will soon be testable. I may soon have a bowel movement but it doesn't mean a damned thing until it actually happens. Your attempt to correlate a human creating a machine as evidence of an intelligent designer for humans is laughable at best. Enjoy your weekend and your delusions.

so let me get this straight. because someome cant comprehend what they read i should now become a christian? and then you proceed to take a pot shot at christians. but you arnt attacking anyone

and u were just asking an innocent question earlier when u tried to ally my thoughts with biblical ones then decided to take a shot at god

you are trying but its not working

so you admit now " it doesn't mean a damned thing until it actually happens." meaning once it does it will no longer be a hypothetical and id will be fact and everything ive said will be true

that scare you , maybe , just a little lol

and who said anything about machines (unless u ment them in the biological sense, as all creatures are machines,which im sure you did lol) im taking about life. not some ipad.

in closing

stop avoiding , get with the facts , or just go

lol

first what does intelligence or design have to do with a diety?

humans think and design all the time.

if we create life is that not intelligent design and creation (no deity needed ty)

get off your anti-god kick and lets discuss this

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

I see you still didn't follow, ID is a creationist concoction, god is implied.
Recreating a natural process is not design.
Life simply has to have been a natural occurance, there is no other way it could occur....
The nonsense that is ID is entirely dependent on "god did it/magic", if not, who pray tell (Lolz) are the designers, and who in turn designed the designers? So on and so forth....
Any other questions you have were addressed in my first reply, you should probably read it again (and the links)....