atheists

[CoooCaw]

"Here's the thing, researchers have already determined how the chemical precursors of life formed on our planet(HAVE THEY??). We know how they got here(DO WE? we KNOW what went on 5 billion years ago?? or we GUESS!!). The next step in the process is determining how the first self-replicating chemicals formed. We may not be talking about living organisms yet, only self-replicating molecules. The point is we will be working from a data base of testable knowledge. You want to put sacred scripture up against testable hypotheses? " - so show us a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS

SO FAR YOU have an untestable hypothesis(EVOLUTION) which breaks known scientific law - this is known as SUPERSTITION and IRRATIONAL DOGMA

 

[Cycel]

I wasn't referencing Intelligent Design. I was speaking of those who take the absence of a scientific explanation as a raison d'etre to slip God in as the explanation. It's the God of the Gaps argument.

It doesn't matter if it's a known scientific explaination or the absence of one, God is involved either way.

You are not supplying evidence. You are still making a God of the Gaps argument. You are stating that if science can't explain something then God must be the answer.

If you simply stated that you have no evidence, but that you believe God originated life, I would be okay with that. But if you are going to say you have evidence, don't point to the absence of scientific evidence as your raison d'etre. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Cycel]

SO FAR YOU have an untestable hypothesis(EVOLUTION) which breaks known scientific law - this is known as SUPERSTITION and IRRATIONAL DOGMA

This is known as hyperventilating.

 

[CoooCaw]

This is known as hyperventilating.

you do not refute it then

 

[TheAristocat]

Here's the thing, researchers have already determined how the chemical precursors of life formed on our planet. We know how they got here. The next step in the process is determining how the first self-replicating chemicals formed. We may not be talking about living organisms yet, only self-replicating molecules. The point is we will be working from a data base of testable knowledge. You want to put sacred scripture up against testable hypotheses? You do that and you have to be willing to put Genesis under the microscope. You will have to treat it as you would any written work produced by men and subject it to rigorous critical examination. My experience so far is that most creationists are very reluctant to even discus the subject with me. Do you want to see what I am talking about? Do yourself a favour, if you haven't already done so, and get a copy of Richard Friedman’s, Who Wrote the Bible. The book is required reading in most seminaries.

I have no objection to the creation account being taught in school so long as it is kept in the religious classroom. The creation story is not a scientific theory. It has no place in the science classroom.

My main concern with that is that teaching a hypothesis as a fact or a theory as a law is not very scientific. To be completely honest, it does seem more like jumping to conclusions. Meaning, it really looks like this is where the evidence is leading so we'll just assume that's where it goes and publish it as fact. In which case they might have good reason to base their faith on this hypothesis or theory, but it's nevertheless misleading. I think the best they could do is say, "It's very likely."

Here's what I gather from what you've told me: 1. We know for a fact how the planet was formed and from what material it was made and how the material necessary for biological life got here and that 2. the material necessary for biological life existed on Earth within the required time period (which is about how long?) that life was supposed to have occurred. But we do not know how life formed or what the earliest form of that life was. An educated guess is that it was chemically active, complex, self-replicating molecules that did not yet qualify as biological life.

I know I've done a little research on this in the past. Wanted to find out if they had ever been able to reproduce the spontaneous creation of complex chemical self-reproduction (i.e. some very primitive, early form of life). But I was unable to find any material on it. Do you know of any reports out there where this has been accomplished under controlled conditions in a lab?

 

[danschance]

Originally Posted by CoooCaw

SO FAR YOU have an untestable hypothesis(EVOLUTION) which breaks known scientific law - this is known as SUPERSTITION and IRRATIONAL DOGMA

Evolution does seem to be a violation of scientific laws of science.

1) It is imponderable the DNA can randomly form.
2) Which came first, DNA or protein? U need DNA to make protein and DNA is made out of protein.
3) Things tend to go from order to disorder (second law of thermal dynamics).
4) Random chance and accident does not favor evolution.
5) The motivation for evolution is made manifest be evolutionists who argue with people of faith and not people of science.

 

[Kerry]

Evolution is a lie that is being pushed down the throats of college and highschool students as a fact when, in fact, it is an educated guess. There is no missing link and never will their be a missing link, because it did not happen.

Giraffes through evolution for a loop and not to mention math and also since men were able to write and put sentences together, they wrote about God and not their father a chimpanzee or a fish that didn't want to be a fish so he became a monkey. Laughable at best.

 

[Cycel]

SO FAR YOU have an untestable hypothesis(EVOLUTION) which breaks known scientific law - this is known as SUPERSTITION and IRRATIONAL DOGMA

This is known as hyperventilating.

you do not refute it then

I would refute it all, but it would take a very large post, and it was bed time. You need to narrow your focus. You raised too many issues all at once, but half my post was left unanswered.

What I meant by my comment was, "Take some deep breaths, slow down, calm yourself." It seemed to me you had become angry and were lashing out. Was I wrong?

 

[Cycel]

Evolution is a lie that is being pushed down the throats of college and highschool students as a fact when, in fact, it is an educated guess. There is no missing link and never will their be a missing link, because it did not happen.

Giraffes through evolution for a loop and not to mention math and also since men were able to write and put sentences together, they wrote about God and not their father a chimpanzee or a fish that didn't want to be a fish so he became a monkey. Laughable at best.

Kerry, you need to read a good book on evolution. I'd recommend Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it Matters, by Donald Prothero. Others might have other recommendations, but you need to read material written by an evolutionary scientist. It's pretty clear from your post that there is much you don't understand or you wouldn't be spouting the rhetoric I see above.

I see Danschance likes your post, but he has told me he doesn't have any interest in learning about evolution. Do you?

 

[megaman125]

You are not supplying evidence. You are still making a God of the Gaps argument. You are stating that if science can't explain something then God must be the answer.

You're not reading what I said. It doesn't matter if science can explain something or not. Either way, God is involved in it. It's not "God of the gaps" as you like to claim, it's God is in everything.

And it's not like evolutionists don't make their own "of the gaps" argument. You yourself admitted in the topic about asexual to sexual transitions that you didn't have the scientific evidence I was asking for. But you still believe it happened because of the "millions of years of the gaps" argument. Got a problem in evolution? Millions of years did it. Flaws in the details of evolution? Millions of years did it. Why doesn't it follow the scientific method? Millions of years makes it magically exempt from that.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1 Timothy 6:20

 

[AvalonXQ]

And it's not like evolutionists don't make their own "of the gaps" argument. You yourself admitted in the topic about asexual to sexual transitions that you didn't have the scientific evidence I was asking for. But you still believe it happened because of the "millions of years of the gaps" argument.

Not at all -- you're confusing evidence that it happened for evidence how it happened.

We believe that it happened because the evidence that we have shows organisms reproducing asexually at one point in time and then later similar organisms reproducing sexually. It's not an "of the gaps" argument because the evidence is there that it happened, and that's what is believed.

How did it happen? We're not sure, exactly - and we're not making a claim of exactly how it happened, either. There are some good arguments for different ways that it could have happened, and if we don't know which one is right (or if any of them is) then we say so.

Because "millions of years" isn't being used as a substitute for an actual mechanism, there's no "millions of years of the gaps" in play here - and millions of years will continue to be part of the answer if/when we DO gain more understanding of which specific path the development took.

Hopefully you can understand the difference between "God did it, so no further explanation is necessary" and "we don't know exactly how it happened yet, but we know it did - and the conditions are there to give us multiple ways that it could have."

 

[Cycel]

My main concern with that is that teaching a hypothesis as a fact or a theory as a law is not very scientific. To be completely honest, it does seem more like jumping to conclusions. Meaning, it really looks like this is where the evidence is leading so we'll just assume that's where it goes and publish it as fact. In which case they might have good reason to base their faith on this hypothesis or theory, but it's nevertheless misleading. I think the best they could do is say, "It's very likely."

Would you point me to an example of an hypothesis that is taught as a fact? I can't think of an instance where this is done. If understanding of some problem has not been nailed down then there will exist competing hypotheses attempting to explain the same data. Students will be taught the competing hypotheses, and so in the jargon of the creationists they are taught the controversy.

Once a consensus is reached and only one hypothesis stands, which explains all the data, only then is it considered a fact.

I would like to hear from you an example of an hypothesis that is taught as fact. I don’t think you find any.

I know I've done a little research on this in the past. Wanted to find out if they had ever been able to reproduce the spontaneous creation of complex chemical self-reproduction (i.e. some very primitive, early form of life). But I was unable to find any material on it.

Self-replicating molecules do exist which is why researchers are interested in them as part of the study on the origin of life. Such molecules may also have industrial applications. I know little about it either, though I have read a few articles on the subject. To start you of see:

w.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/Rebek.htm

If you Google this topic you will find mostly creationist websites. I can look in Scientific American for you later.

 

[CoooCaw]

from an evolutionary perspective, why is the male peacock as decorated as he is?

Kerry, you need to read a good book on evolution. I'd recommend Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it Matters, by Donald Prothero. Others might have other recommendations, but you need to read material written by an evolutionary scientist. It's pretty clear from your post that there is much you don't understand or you wouldn't be spouting the rhetoric I see above.

I see Danschance likes your post, but he has told me he doesn't have any interest in learning about evolution. Do you?

 

[CoooCaw]

Would you point me to an example of an hypothesis that is taught as a fact?
evolutionism, acretian model to explain the formation of the solar system




I can't think of an instance where this is done. If understanding of some problem has not been nailed down then there will exist competing hypotheses attempting to explain the same data.
there are competing hypotheses for these but they are not evenly presented


Students will be taught the competing hypotheses,
only in christian schools

and so in the jargon of the creationists they are taught the controversy.

Once a consensus is reached and only one hypothesis stands
even if consensus ie 100% agreement is reach THAT IS NOT THE GROUNDS for establishing fact!


, which explains all the data, only then is it considered a fact.

the truth is there are competing ideas which explain the observable data - and only a testable hypothesis can qualify as a theory if the testing justifies it; and this is still not necessarily a fact


I would like to hear from you an example of an hypothesis that is taught as fact. I don’t think you find any.


Self-replicating molecules do exist which is why researchers are interested in them as part of the study on the origin of life. Such molecules may also have industrial applications. I know little about it either, though I have read a few articles on the subject. To start you of see:

w.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/Rebek.htm

If you Google this topic you will find mostly creationist websites. I can look in Scientific American for you later.

Q: When is a scientist NOT a scientist???

 

[zone]

Would you point me to an example of an hypothesis that is taught as a fact? I can't think of an instance where this is done. If understanding of some problem has not been nailed down then there will exist competing hypotheses attempting to explain the same data. Students will be taught the competing hypotheses, and so in the jargon of the creationists they are taught the controversy.

Once a consensus is reached and only one hypothesis stands, which explains all the data, only then is it considered a fact.

I would like to hear from you an example of an hypothesis that is taught as fact. I don’t think you find any.


Self-replicating molecules do exist which is why researchers are interested in them as part of the study on the origin of life. Such molecules may also have industrial applications. I know little about it either, though I have read a few articles on the subject. To start you of see:

w.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/Rebek.htm

If you Google this topic you will find mostly creationist websites. I can look in Scientific American for you later.

that's all fine.
go back to the smallest most primitive life form known.

it's still LIFE.
life does not appear spontaneously.

in order for evolution to be true you must go back to the origin of life and replicate it through the scientific method.
it's not been done.

dead matter + energy + time does not equal life.
you need information in there.

only an intelligent creator inputs information.

the atheist must go to the Big Bang for the origin of life.
and that brings me back to - what caused/came before/was behind the Big Bang?

evolution is stupid, really....for it to be true, i ought to be able to look out the window and see a frog walking on two legs boarding the bus and counting out money - and every possible variation as well....talk about Star Trek/Sci Fi.

nah.

a leopard will never be an elephant.
a monkey will never be a man.

 

[TheAristocat]

Once a consensus is reached and only one hypothesis stands, which explains all the data, only then is it considered a fact.

I thought it was considered a theory and then considered a law. But a hypothesis of course is a long way from being accepted as a fact. And from what I understand of abiogenesis, this is where it's at. That's not to say we can't replicate an early Earth atmosphere in a lab if we know for a fact what the atmospheric conditions were. Does the article you've given me a link to deal with the spontaneous creation of self-replicating molecules under the environmental conditions that existed on Earth when life is thought to have first arisen? (That's a mouthful.) That's primarily what I'd be interested in.

I would like to hear from you an example of an hypothesis that is taught as fact. I don’t think you find any.

Meaning that you don't believe there is a single instance in the history of the world where a hypothesis was/is taught as a fact or misrepresented? Or you don't believe that in Canada that has ever been the case?

 

[AvalonXQ]

evolution is stupid, really....for it to be true, i ought to be able to look out the window and see a frog walking on two legs boarding the bus and counting out money - and every possible variation as well....

No, evolution doesn't say that every possible variation will exist. Evolution is concerned with what mechanisms cause variations to exist, and how we got the variations that we have today.

What selective pressures would make any frog species move toward the traits you mentioned? None that I know of - frogs are very well-adapted for the niches that they fill.

It is an old SF trope that a bunch of different animal species would eventually move toward human-like intelligence and society given enough time or a nuclear war or something, but that's silly. Every other animal on the planet has been evolving just as long as we have, and there's no more reason to believe that they're some day going to develop an enlarged cerebral cortex than there is that we're going to develop echolocation, or feathers, or web-spinners.

Evolution is about differential survival selecting for variability. It's been going on for billions of years now, and continues to.

 

[CoooCaw]

No, evolution doesn't say that every possible variation will exist. Evolution is concerned with what mechanisms cause variations to exist, and how we got the variations that we have today.

What selective pressures would make any frog species move toward the traits you mentioned? None that I know of - frogs are very well-adapted for the niches that they fill.

It is an old SF trope that a bunch of different animal species would eventually move toward human-like intelligence and society given enough time or a nuclear war or something, but that's silly. Every other animal on the planet has been evolving just as long as we have, and there's no more reason to believe that they're some day going to develop an enlarged cerebral cortex than there is that we're going to develop echolocation, or feathers, or web-spinners.

Evolution is about differential survival selecting for variability. It's been going on for billions of years now, and continues to.

you know, Darwin gave it away in the title of his book "Natural Selection"

what is "Artificial selection'???

it is breeding OUT characteristics - not breeding IN or introducing new ones

eg, my cat is a DSH - Domestic Short Hair

his ancestors may have had a long hair gene to pass on but it has been bred out so that, if he wasnt neutered, he can only pass on the short hair gene

"Artificial Selection" is all about breeding EXISTING characterisitics OUT;
and that is all that any "NATURAL SELECTION" could potentially do

 

[TheAristocat]

you know, Darwin gave it away in the title of his book "Natural Selection"

what is "Artificial selection'???

it is breeding OUT characteristics - not breeding IN or introducing new ones

eg, my cat is a DSH - Domestic Short Hair

his ancestors may have had a long hair gene to pass on but it has been bred out so that, if he wasnt neutered, he can only pass on the short hair gene

"Artificial Selection" is all about breeding EXISTING characterisitics OUT;
and that is all that any "NATURAL SELECTION" could potentially do

Eh. The assertion is that diverse environments breed diverse organisms. I see your point with the removal of certain genes and would tend to agree with it if it weren't for natural selection only being a part of evolution. Mutation is another.

 

[AvalonXQ]

what is "Artificial selection'???

it is breeding OUT characteristics - not breeding IN or introducing new ones

I disagree. We have bred dogs for intelligence, for temperament, for digging skills, for size (big and small), for color (light and dark), for hair (short and long), and many other traits. The result has included traits that never existed in dogs' ancestors, the wolves, including a range of sizes and colors and shapes and temperaments totally outside of what wolves produce.

To say we're really "breeding OUT" traits when we breed the most intelligent animals and end up with animals smarter than any of their ancestors, is silly.

And, of course, there's the simple fact in evolution that we know broadly what creatures came from what, and how the observed traits could have arisen and been selected for. Trying to say it's impossible, when in fact it's not only possible but actually happened, is also silly.