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

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Logically, you are incorrect. The burden of proof is placed upon the person who makes any positive claim in any logical endeavor. For example, if I claim that I have a green hat (positive claim), I need to provide evidence to support this claim if I want people to believe me. If I say that god exists (positive claim), you need to provide evidence for that assertion, as well. A logical person should be skeptical of all claims made until evidence is provided, and the further that claim falls from the default understanding of the world, the more evidence is needed to support it.

For example, if you assert that a unicorn is living in your backyard, I want some good evidence of this, maybe a picture. If you claim that unicorn is invisible, well, I might want more evidence that just a picture. Maybe I would need a video of someone covering the invisible unicorn in some paint to show the shape. If you say it can't be painted, then I might want to see if I can interact with the unicorn by touch. If you say it cannot be touched and felt, then what evidence do I have of this ridiculous claim? How would you give me evidence this unobservable unicorn exists?

Courtroom logic and scientific logic are two different things that rely on the same principles of logic. Courtroom logic, though, is used to convince other people, whereas scientific logic is used to explain observations. Those in a courtroom can easily be swayed by eyewitness testimony (a less rigorous form of evidence that would not be allowed in the sciences without other supporting evidence) but science requires rigid frameworks for getting information. Your comparison of science to a courtroom is incorrect.

No one claims "evolution from nothing." Biological evolution only refers to speciation, or the diversification of species. The origin of life is often discussed in matters of abiogenesis. They are related, but they act independently, so even the falsification of natural abiogenesis would not invalidate the evidence for evolution. Now, aside from that, there is nothing saying that a deity did not guide these natural processes, but the notion of a deity is currently unnecessary for the models to work. As a result, the simplest model (the one with the least unnecessary assumptions) is being used.

As for prayer in medicine, forgive me for not trusting your anecdotal evidence.
www.nytimes.com...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But you only have the power to bully if I let you, this is not the victim mentality, but the way your side acts is just like the Middle Ages. How ironic is that?

Yep that's a great example of someone not playing the victim card.

It's kind of humerus the way these so called "evolution skeptics" always act like they have a genuine interest in the topic at first and are willing to accept evidence, and then when the evidence is presented it gets denied, and eventually degrades into mudslinging and the insulting of scientists. They act like they want to show scrutiny, dismissing scientific evidence, but then believe something like god on a complete whim based solely off confirmation bias. No, you haven't seen god working in your life. You've seen something that you can't/won't come up with a natural explanation for so you automatically assume it's god working in your life. So your scrutiny for science is HUGE, while your scrutiny for religious beliefs is non existent.

If you want to promote your faith, then talk about the benefits. Don't attack proven science like evolution. I think people are pretty much just really stubborn, and don't like seeing their religion crumble before their eyes because of their emotional connection to it from indoctrination when they were young impressionable children. Please do the world a favor and let your kids decide for themselves rather than psychologically damaging them with this pipe dream that doesn't have a single shred of objective evidence to back it up. Parents shouldn't lie to their kids.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Here's the way I see it, and this is my opinion, as people claim the universe was created by a sudden force of energy, then that goes with what all the ancient texts say, that God spoke and the universe began. A voice is an energy wave, is it not?

Actually the big bang doesn't say that at all. The big bang was just the start of the standard model of space time physics. We don't know anything about the universe before the big bang happened, but that doesn't mean that it was the start of the universe. That is an assumption that we agreed we aren't allowed to make in this thread.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

Logically, you are incorrect. The burden of proof is placed upon the person who makes any positive claim in any logical endeavor. For example, if I claim that I have a green hat (positive claim), I need to provide evidence to support this claim if I want people to believe me. If I say that god exists (positive claim), you need to provide evidence for that assertion, as well. A logical person should be skeptical of all claims made until evidence is provided, and the further that claim falls from the default understanding of the world, the more evidence is needed to support it.

For example, if you assert that a unicorn is living in your backyard, I want some good evidence of this, maybe a picture. If you claim that unicorn is invisible, well, I might want more evidence that just a picture. Maybe I would need a video of someone covering the invisible unicorn in some paint to show the shape. If you say it can't be painted, then I might want to see if I can interact with the unicorn by touch. If you say it cannot be touched and felt, then what evidence do I have of this ridiculous claim? How would you give me evidence this unobservable unicorn exists?

Courtroom logic and scientific logic are two different things that rely on the same principles of logic. Courtroom logic, though, is used to convince other people, whereas scientific logic is used to explain observations. Those in a courtroom can easily be swayed by eyewitness testimony (a less rigorous form of evidence that would not be allowed in the sciences without other supporting evidence) but science requires rigid frameworks for getting information. Your comparison of science to a courtroom is incorrect.

No one claims "evolution from nothing." Biological evolution only refers to speciation, or the diversification of species. The origin of life is often discussed in matters of abiogenesis. They are related, but they act independently, so even the falsification of natural abiogenesis would not invalidate the evidence for evolution. Now, aside from that, there is nothing saying that a deity did not guide these natural processes, but the notion of a deity is currently unnecessary for the models to work. As a result, the simplest model (the one with the least unnecessary assumptions) is being used.

As for prayer in medicine, forgive me for not trusting your anecdotal evidence.
www.nytimes.com...

Sincere regards,

Well said!
Hydeman

originally posted by: Barcs
It's kind of humerus the way these so called "evolution skeptics" always act like they have a genuine interest in the topic at first and are willing to accept evidence, and then when the evidence is presented it gets denied, and eventually degrades into mudslinging and the insulting of scientists. They act like they want to show scrutiny, dismissing scientific evidence, but then believe something like god on a complete whim based solely off confirmation bias. No, you haven't seen god working in your life. You've seen something that you can't/won't come up with a natural explanation for so you automatically assume it's god working in your life. So your scrutiny for science is HUGE, while your scrutiny for religious beliefs is non existent.

.

I've yet to meet a creationist who has even bothered to find out what evolution actually means. In my experience, they rely solely on creationist websites and the claims of other creationists for their understanding of science. The very title of this topic implies that non-creationists claim that evolution explains "everything". No such claim has ever been made. Your post is apt.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's kind of humerus the way these so called "evolution skeptics" always act like they have a genuine interest in the topic at first and are willing to accept evidence, and then when the evidence is presented it gets denied, and eventually degrades into mudslinging and the insulting of scientists. They act like they want to show scrutiny, dismissing scientific evidence, but then believe something like god on a complete whim based solely off confirmation bias. No, you haven't seen god working in your life. You've seen something that you can't/won't come up with a natural explanation for so you automatically assume it's god working in your life. So your scrutiny for science is HUGE, while your scrutiny for religious beliefs is non existent.

If you want to promote your faith, then talk about the benefits. Don't attack proven science like evolution. I think people are pretty much just really stubborn, and don't like seeing their religion crumble before their eyes because of their emotional connection to it from indoctrination when they were young impressionable children. Please do the world a favor and let your kids decide for themselves rather than psychologically damaging them with this pipe dream that doesn't have a single shred of objective evidence to back it up. Parents shouldn't lie to their kids.

Hmm, so let's see, in which system of indoctrination were you raised in? Did you not go to a school in which the teachers told you that evolution is true and then reinforced it over and over, so much that you have to concede to the groupthink or else be ostracized among your friends and peers? If you are afraid you will be ostracized, then how indoctrinated have you become?

OK, why are your leading evolutionist scientists having trouble reconciling evolution with the facts?

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Why are your experts having difficulty with trying to prove the "facts"? The guy couldn't find it on earth so he said it comes from Mars. He's one of your guys, a "real" scientist, who can't explain one of the most important jumps that should have led from simple life forms to complex. How do you want to prove that fact, when this guy can't? OK, as you are the expert, tell us what this guy can't.

And this is just one of your scientists. I think he throws just a little bit more doubt onto the "evidence".

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: danielsil18

But an audio wave is physical and that's is what we call a manifestation, or a physical expression of a supernatural origin.

Where is the testable evidence for this claim of fact? Where is the testable evidence proving that an audio wave is a physical expression of a supernatural origin?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Barcs
It's kind of humerus the way these so called "evolution skeptics" always act like they have a genuine interest in the topic at first and are willing to accept evidence, and then when the evidence is presented it gets denied, and eventually degrades into mudslinging and the insulting of scientists. They act like they want to show scrutiny, dismissing scientific evidence, but then believe something like god on a complete whim based solely off confirmation bias. No, you haven't seen god working in your life. You've seen something that you can't/won't come up with a natural explanation for so you automatically assume it's god working in your life. So your scrutiny for science is HUGE, while your scrutiny for religious beliefs is non existent.

.

I've yet to meet a creationist who has even bothered to find out what evolution actually means. In my experience, they rely solely on creationist websites and the claims of other creationists for their understanding of science. The very title of this topic implies that non-creationists claim that evolution explains "everything". No such claim has ever been made. Your post is apt.

Nope, in fact every link I show is from either a university or evolution website. It's that information you are going to have to deal with.

Not one link I have presented has come from a Creationist.

originally posted by: ThePheonix16482
a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no single theory of evolution. There's many different opinions. Each opinion created and then covered with facts that support it but its true foundation is the human mind not any facts or observations.

Each religion may also have a theory of evolution. Some have better facts than others thus some are more believable. I believe the theory of evolution that is implemented within Hinduism because it has legitimate facts and the Indian government has no control over archeological research. No artifacts are tampered with just to spread belief of a certain theory like many are in the west.

The yogic theory of evolution evolves aroun the Yugas cycle. One rotation of the Earths axis takes 25,920 years. For only 3,600 years each do we evolve in either negative or positive ways. This can be seen in the intelligence of our race. It has gotten slightly lower than say the Rama Empire in the 4th stage 16,480 b.c - 12,720 b.c.

Egypt and Hindu Cambodia are other examples. Though Hindu Cambodia is part of the Rama Empire because the architectural style matches that of buildings in mainland India.

It shows a belief not a theory, so after all there's no right theory since its a theory so no one knows until we have legit proof. Like the next reincarnation of brahma or Krishna or even if Christ comes down from the heavens to earth or something.

No offense, but you don't have a clue what is meant by the scientific theory (ie. theorum) of evolution. In fact, you don't know that a scientific theorum is not a guess. You are confusing theory with hypothesis.

originally posted by: danielsil18
What WarminIndy is trying to do is get people to say that they have faith in science. That way WarminIndy can say that having faith in god is the same as "having faith in science".

I had a discussion with WarminIndy before and he/she was trying to make me say I had to have some kind of faith in my life. For example, this is what WarminIndy wrote in that discussion:

If apples were able to, they could propel themselves in any direction, but the natural order is that they fall because of an external force. Natural, yes. Tangible, no. You must have faith and belief in gravity and the three laws of motion.

I think WarminIndy wasn't asking questions to get answers. WarminIndy was asking questions to get people to say that they have "faith" in science.

Just my opinion.

You're right. This is one of the strategies creationists are taught to use. They actually expect it to work. LOL

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: danielsil18

But an audio wave is physical and that's is what we call a manifestation, or a physical expression of a supernatural origin.

Where is the testable evidence for this claim of fact? Where is the testable evidence proving that an audio wave is a physical expression of a supernatural origin?

Definition of supernatural...

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Quasars

What is your definition of a quasar?

This is best answered with history. When radio telescopes were first turned on the heavens, point sources of radio waves were discovered (along with spread-out regions of emission along our Milky Way). Astronomers using ordinary visible-light telescopes turned toward these radio points and looked to see what was there. In some cases a supernova remnant was found, in others, a large star-birth region, in others a distant galaxy. But in some places where point sources of radio waves were found, no visible source other than a stellar-looking object was found (it looked like a point of like --- like a star does). These objects were called the "qausi-stellar radio sources", or "quasars" for short. Later, it was found these sources could not be stars in our galaxy, but must be very far away --- as far as any of the distant galaxies seen. We now think these objects are the very bright centers of some distant galaxies, where some sort of energetic action is occurring, most probably due to the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of that galaxy (supermassive = made up from a mass of about a billion solar masses).

There was no physical source for a physical phenomenon. So scientist had to guess and haven't been able to.

There is no physical evidence for the radio signals and yet radio signals are audio energy waves. That would be supernatural as it is above natural laws.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Hmm, so let's see, in which system of indoctrination were you raised in? Did you not go to a school in which the teachers told you that evolution is true and then reinforced it over and over, so much that you have to concede to the groupthink or else be ostracized among your friends and peers? If you are afraid you will be ostracized, then how indoctrinated have you become?

OK, why are your leading evolutionist scientists having trouble reconciling evolution with the facts?

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Why are your experts having difficulty with trying to prove the "facts"? The guy couldn't find it on earth so he said it comes from Mars. He's one of your guys, a "real" scientist, who can't explain one of the most important jumps that should have led from simple life forms to complex. How do you want to prove that fact, when this guy can't? OK, as you are the expert, tell us what this guy can't.

And this is just one of your scientists. I think he throws just a little bit more doubt onto the "evidence".

Do you have a link to that quote? You just proved my point completely. Origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. You are relying on nothing but creationist propaganda to define your understanding (rather lack thereof) of evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist scientist. The entropy argument is a complete joke because the earth is not a closed system.

I believe evolution because I've read dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed scientific research papers that prove it. You believe creationism because a single unverified story book says so, despite ZERO objective evidence. Sorry, but when it comes to the real world, science wins. I have no problem with your personal faith, but it makes you and religious folks as a whole look bad when you attempt to argue against science that you know next to nothing about. Things you learn in science class are fact based. Things you learn about bible, god and jesus are completely subjective. Need I go on? Are you against education for children that is fact based? Or would you rather them only be taught myths?

But you miss the relevant question, OP. If not Evolution, then what is the theory that replaces it? Creationism? But what kind. Evolution is the best theory we have...and as we get more information that theory evolves. I'm okay if you want to scrap evolution as a theory, but you have to replace it with something. So, the relevant question is "What do you replace the theory of evolution with?"

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Hmm, so let's see, in which system of indoctrination were you raised in? Did you not go to a school in which the teachers told you that evolution is true and then reinforced it over and over, so much that you have to concede to the groupthink or else be ostracized among your friends and peers? If you are afraid you will be ostracized, then how indoctrinated have you become?

OK, why are your leading evolutionist scientists having trouble reconciling evolution with the facts?

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Why are your experts having difficulty with trying to prove the "facts"? The guy couldn't find it on earth so he said it comes from Mars. He's one of your guys, a "real" scientist, who can't explain one of the most important jumps that should have led from simple life forms to complex. How do you want to prove that fact, when this guy can't? OK, as you are the expert, tell us what this guy can't.

And this is just one of your scientists. I think he throws just a little bit more doubt onto the "evidence".

Do you have a link to that quote? You just proved my point completely. Origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. You are relying on nothing but creationist propaganda to define your understanding (rather lack thereof) of evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist scientist. The entropy argument is a complete joke because the earth is not a closed system.
I believe evolution because I've read dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed scientific research papers that prove it. You believe creationism because a single unverified story book says so, despite ZERO objective evidence. Sorry, but when it comes to the real world, science wins. I have no problem with your personal faith, but it makes you and religious folks as a whole look bad when you attempt to argue against science that you know next to nothing about. Things you learn in science class are fact based. Things you learn about bible, god and jesus are completely subjective. Need I go on?

Yes, here you go...Steven Benner

Steven Benner one about Steven Benner

What we have published is that you cannot have a real molecular system that does genetics in the Darwinian sense without having on it a repeating charge [like the molecules that make up the backbone of DNA, each of which has a positive charge associated with it]. If [the molecule has] a repeating dipole, that is a plus-minus, it's like putting north-south magnets on a string. It will not be a genetic molecule. It will not support Darwinian evolution.

He is not a Creationist, and yet he can't even support Darwinian evolution. The Publication of Steven Benner

He's a real scientist, right?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. That is the one thing it seems that creationists are totally misinformed on. It has been stated in this thread, but it should be repeated; god is not discounted by evolution. In fact, god could be the guiding force.

Steven Benner most certainly accepts the tenets of the theory of evolution. This is where creationists seem to get totally befuddled. What is being addressed by Benner is the origin question... and not even the question of how/why inorganic material came from organic material.... but WHERE this might have occured.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Darwinian evolution is as outdated as the ford model t. That's not to say that darwinian evolution hasn't contributed to the foundation of modern day evolutionary theory, but they are no longer exactly the same thing.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Why are your experts having difficulty with trying to prove the "facts"? The guy couldn't find it on earth so he said it comes from Mars. He's one of your guys, a "real" scientist, who can't explain one of the most important jumps that should have led from simple life forms to complex. How do you want to prove that fact, when this guy can't? OK, as you are the expert, tell us what this guy can't.

And this is just one of your scientists. I think he throws just a little bit more doubt onto the "evidence".

This is Abiogenesis and not evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and being a hypothesis is nowhere close to being called true. Evolution on the other hand is a theory and doesn't include the origin of life in its theory. If it did, if would be bumped back down to a hypothesis, so it instead starts with the premise that life exists already on the planet.

Please don't conflate the two. Not all science is equal. Some ideas are more further developed than others, but invalidating one doesn't necessarily invalidate the other. Especially when one has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying that Jesus didn't live because Noah didn't either. It's stupid and unrelated.

a reply to: WarminIndy

From

Biomed Central

There is no true reliable true set of protein families. Have you found by now the protein families that can be tested by accurately?

a reply to: WarminIndy

From the conclusion section on page 5 of the PDF

"At a biological level, the dataset generated here can be mined
to provide global pictures of how evolution has occurred"

I am unclear how this paper furthers any of your points.