Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh good you are using that phrase of yours again. We are talking evolution not biogenesis.

If you can not refute those points then one must assume you concede the field.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh good you are using that phrase of yours again. We are talking evolution not biogenesis.

If you can not refute those points then one must assume you concede the field.

Ok I concede the field

So where is the scientific evidence for evolution, the empirical evidence, the proof.
Assumption does not win anything
Why do you hate science, why are you trying to turn it into a religion.
Why do you hate science noindy

mice molars is not empirical evidence, its mice molars

What have you got as empirical evidence

Mice molars may be enough for you, they dont cut it where I am from as empirical evidence.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Raggedyman

ah so you admit you're trolling - thought so - now answer about Moses and the burning bush. Better yet, how about a staff turning into a viper. ( just in the interest's of keeping it honest - as you avoided the main point I was making)

I agreed, I said it was inconsistent.
It seems God is inconsistent in the way He deals with mankind

What do you want from me, want me to disagree, fight you, say God is consistent

Whats your point, what do you want from me ?

Are you a Mormon, do you believe in the planet Kolob

A few staffs are reputed to have turned into vipers in the book of exodus, happy ? Thats my answer...

acceptable grammar to participate in.

Acceptable grammar in which to participate.

a reply to: Noinden

Both of my kids were born without wisdom teeth.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I'd also it is not my lineage, it is all Homo sapiens. OR are you claiming to be a reptilian?

Many believe their lineage is not through evolutionary theory. I am pointing out your beliefs in evolutionary theory. Your theoretical ancestors at one time were a fish-like creature - think about it. Your greatest grandparent was theoretically a microbe.

These are not semantics, these are core concepts associated with the theory of evolution.

a reply to: thinline

Why does the hologram/matrix theory disprove evolution?

Why can't things evolve in the matrix?

a reply to: AshFan

Why can't people see that it's not a question of Evolution or Creationism. It is actually both. God created the universe and everything in it. His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.

a reply to: namelesss

And we don't need a 'well rounded understanding', we need a theory that accounts for all Perspectives!

I tend to think from a programming perspective. Godel's theorem and Turing's incompleteness theorem indicate to me that no one theory can account for all perspectives; or at least, to do so would require absolutely infinite knowledge.

As a mortal I count such knowledge beyond myself. Though I still feel a temptation to dig into what knowledge I can, just as I get the temptation to dig into a bowl of ice-cream. Furthermore, I think what I learn may prove useful if I can pick up on any principles I can apply.

I take it your approach to evolution vs creation would be different from mine. Do you have a theory? How do you go about developing it? Do others share your theory? Is your approach Zen based?

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: AshFan

Why can't people see that it's not a question of Evolution or Creationism. It is actually both. God created the universe and everything in it. His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.

I think it would take too much effort for most people to stop believing one thing they believe and start believing the opposite, or even to combine the two.

The argument has been framed in a such a way that it benefits both "sides" to keep it polarized. There is no incentive for established Religion nor established Science to concede anything or admit they aren't 100% correct. That's not to say they won't appear to do that sometimes or on some topics, but I think that is mostly placating.

As soon as either establishment turns 180 degrees on points that have been argued for centuries it opens the door to admitting they may be incorrect about other things they are adamant are correct. None of us have a hard time believing this is an issue for Religion but many of us will flat out deny it happens in science. They will argue that science is ONLY about the search for knowledge and truth, but most of us know this isn't always the case.

It will eventually gain enough traction to rival the traditional views, as long as those traditional views don't drive us to or give us the means to kill the planet before it can happen.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again I can only ascribe the fact you are missing the evidence for evolution to a degenerative condition of your eyes. Because you would not be being intellectually dishonest right?

As for the rest. Prove I hate science. Prove I am turning it to a religion. Because as I have said to you repetedly.

I

have

a

religious

practice.

I'm Pàganachd.

Perhaps a larger font might help your eyesight?

I am Pàganachd.




So again, each of those fifteen (15) points. Discuss them each. Not a broad dismissal.

I'll bite.

You understand anti-creationism isn't even a thing. It's a responce [sic] to creationists that spread disinformation and non-facts as truth. If there weren't creationists they wouldn't even argue about it

So what you're saying is, it's a thing.

Science is about having PROOF first.

No, it isn't. They seek to give validity and confirm. Granted, to a simpleton like me that's the same thing, but scientists know that theories have a "range-of-validity, and outside of that range their validity breaks down." link

Many CONSIDER IT, and that's more effort than the vomit responses they normally get about Jesus.

Many scientists are Christian. Go tell reputable scientists that their responses about Jesus are "vomit" responses. See how much they care, or how little it hinders their pursuits as world-class scientists.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Actrually speaking as a scientist. You interpret the data, and if it does not agree with your pet theory, it (the theory) is probably wrong. Thus when forming a theory, you base the theory on the data, not on your biases.

Any scientist of any faith is supposed to leave their faith at the door (I do, and no I'm not a member of an Abrahamic faith). Science does not care about Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, or Baldur (for example). Science is their job. I don't want my medical professionals to apply their faith to my care, just like my clients don't care if November 1st is a holy day for me or not. Doing your job is what matters.

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: AshFan

Why can't people see that it's not a question of Evolution or Creationism. It is actually both. God created the universe and everything in it. His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.

I once agreed with you and it seems logical - a progression of a growing conscious world that ultimately reaches its pinnacle with humankind. The problem is, evolution is based on random mutations, not consciously guided mechanisms. The achilles heel of evolution will be when we realize the 14 billion year time frame of our world is completely speculative and based on assumptions. The house of cards will fall when people honestly analyze the empirical evidence on their own.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: AshFan

Why can't people see that it's not a question of Evolution or Creationism. It is actually both. God created the universe and everything in it. His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.

I once agreed with you and it seems logical - a progression of a growing conscious world that ultimately reaches its pinnacle with humankind. The problem is, evolution is based on random mutations, not consciously guided mechanisms. The achilles heel of evolution will be when we realize the 14 billion year time frame of our world is completely speculative and based on assumptions. The house of cards will fall when people honestly analyze the empirical evidence on their own.

Egotistical in the extreme to refer to hominids as the pinnacle of evolution.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

No..

Yes.

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant

not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
"this redundant brewery has been converted into a library"


synonyms: unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for; More
surplus, superfluous


"the system is hobbled by redundant paperwork"



antonyms: essential, necessary



•(of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function

How exactly does the above apply to evolution? Some of the more feeble minded amongst us may have trouble following your meaning here so be a sport and clarify your statement.

Stop trying to separate the two

Look, I'm really sorry that your education has utterly and completely failed you to the point that you prefer to be willfully ignorant but that's not my cross to bear. No amount of explanation will ever get it through to you that HYPOTHESES such as abiogenesis or panspermia are the study of chemical interactions. The people who study these hypothetical processes are called CHEMISTS.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis studies biological processes. It does however incorporate other disciplines outside of pure biology such as genetics, hence the "synthesis" portion of its title. It is a separate area of study and has been since before Miller and Urey proved that under the conditions then thought to exist on Earth and in its atmosphere when life first developed, complex organic compounds were able to naturally synthesize from simpler inorganic compounds. These simpler compounds exist along with other organic molecules in the Oort clouds of not just our own star system but those orbiting stars as well.

Even beyond the fact that completely different scientific disciplines study these phenomena, no matter how much you protest, one does not need to know precisely HOW life first developed to understand how allele frequencies amongst populations change. Perhaps you could clarify for everyone and explain to us how exactly measuring mutation rates for example, would be altered by knowing the specific processes that led to the first self replicating unicellular organism?

Nor is it ME who is trying to separate them. You need to write to the National Academy of Sciences with your complaint. They are already separate. Perhaps you should cease attempting to combine them together and focus your time on better understanding the science involved. Seriously, why do you hate science so much and in advance of your looming protestations, can you provide empirical evidence that you do not in fact hate science?

a reply to: peter vlar

Strawman
Let's get back to empirical evidence foe evolution

While I do believe you need life first before evolution can take place, we can leave that to simmer

Evolution needs empirical evidence before it can leave the realm of religions and faith

Science is not assumption, so with that (please leave mouse molars out) let's see what you have

Getting boring asking this question

a reply to: Noinden

Except your science is a religion when you believe that mouse molars are empirical evidence for evolution
You are far more religious than I

You metaphorically wear the robes of your choice of religion and repeat its incantations.

If you were truly hounest with yourself you would admit evolution has many problems, many issues that can't be explained away
Your disbelief makes evolution a religion by necessity, you must believe not to have to believe
Many scientists don't believe in evolution or doubt it's mechanisms, you prefer the cool aid approach.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Care to list the "many problems" you believe exist with MES?