Evolution? How?

The only fairy tale book under discussion is the bible. Many have identified many of the contradictions, errors and omissions authored by your god. If it's not the word of god, then the Hebrew authors had great imagination without any sense for logic and science.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only fairy tale book under discussion is the bible. Many have identified many of the contradictions, errors and omissions authored by your god. If it's not the word of god, then the Hebrew authors had great imagination without any sense for logic and science.

You may disbelieve the Bible all you wish. It does not advance your theory one iota.

Since the title of the thread is Evolution? How?......... then the main question is How?

How did non-living chemicals put themselves together by pure chance to form a complex living cell?

There are no known and demonstrated scientific and chemical processes by which this could occur. Nothing even remotely resembling it has ever been observed. It is all guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the proponents of this fairy tale for grownups.

If it is not as I have described, then explain how it happened. A Nobel prize awaits you.

0 Replies

I'm late to this thread. Does this mean we've settled how evoloution works, and moved on to Abiogenesis? How?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How did non-living chemicals put themselves together by pure chance to form a complex living cell?

There are no known and demonstrated scientific and chemical processes by which this could occur. Nothing even remotely resembling it has ever been observed. It is all guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the proponents of this fairy tale for grownups.

The theory of evolution is not just about how life began - it's mostly about how lifeforms evolve, believe it or not. As far as I know, you're right that we can't prove that "non-living chemicals put themselves together by pure chance to form a complex living cell"

But so what? There's a wealth of evidence that parents pass their genes on to their offspring, there's a wealth of evidence for the survival of the fittest, and there's a wealth of evidence for random genetic mutation. That's all evolution is! It's the survival of the genes that make a species most fit for survival.

So for example, say giraffes once all had short necks (I think they did, but it doesn't matter if they didn't - just take this as an illustration of the theory). A few giraffes might randomly develop a gene for a long neck. Since giraffes eat leaves from high in the trees, the longer-necked giraffes will have less trouble getting food, and will have a better chance for survival than the short-necked giraffes. So giraffes with long necks will survive to reproduce and pass on this gene, and have offspring that also have long necks. As the long-neck population increases like this, there will be less food available for the short-necked giraffes, who are at a disadvantage - so they will die out. So giraffes will have gradually evolved into creatures with long necks.

Even if the idea that life began by chance is a fairy tale, as you say, that doesn't really matter as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. No matter how life began, there's a hell of a lot of evidence that lifeforms evolve as I have described, and that new species (including humans) evolve from other species, and are not created from scratch.

I'll give you links and sources later if you want them...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The only fairy tale book under discussion is the bible. Many have identified many of the contradictions, errors and omissions authored by your god. If it's not the word of god, then the Hebrew authors had great imagination without any sense for logic and science.

You may disbelieve the Bible all you wish. It does not advance your theory one iota.

Since the title of the thread is Evolution? How?......... then the main question is How?

How did non-living chemicals put themselves together by pure chance to form a complex living cell?

There are no known and demonstrated scientific and chemical processes by which this could occur. Nothing even remotely resembling it has ever been observed. It is all guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the proponents of this fairy tale for grownups.

If it is not as I have described, then explain how it happened. A Nobel prize awaits you.

What is your alternative then?

Have you noticed that in all these debates, Creationists cannot ever seem to come up with an argument without mentioning and attacking Evolution or any theory that props it up?

Conversely, scientists can make arguments for evolution without even mentioning Creationism.

Why is that? Could it be because that attacking Evolution does not prove that ID or Creationism is true? You cannot attack Evolution and say it is wrong, therefore this is true. You can only say, this is wrong because of reason A, B and C, therefore it is wrong.

Now, I dare you to make an argument for Creationism without referring once to Evolution. There is more evidence to infer that evolution exists and evidence to prove that at least micro-evolution exists, than there is evidence to support the alternatives.

What about the Hindu creation story? The Shinto story? The Chinese one? Those of the Aborigines, even! What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How can you say the Christian Creation story is more true than these ones? Because there's more Christians out there?

Have you forgotten that Christianity is an Evangelical religion that actively converts those that do not share the Christian belief? Have you forgotten the Missionaries? Have you forgotten the "Worship our God or die?" mentality that the Church used to have in the dark ages?

What do you believe in? Creationism? Where is your positive proof and how can you prove that your proof is valid?

I have found that all Creationist fail in making a decent argument for Creationism that makes no mention or even direct attack against Evolution.

Just look at agrote's post above. Not one direct attack against Creationism. Not even a mention of it.

Can you do the same but for Creationism? I severely doubt it, because it requires proving Genesis to be true and only the very first part of Genesis. Can you prove the other creation myths to be false? I severely doubt you can do that either.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The only fairy tale book under discussion is the bible. Many have identified many of the contradictions, errors and omissions authored by your god. If it's not the word of god, then the Hebrew authors had great imagination without any sense for logic and science.

You may disbelieve the Bible all you wish. It does not advance your theory one iota.

Since the title of the thread is Evolution? How?......... then the main question is How?

How did non-living chemicals put themselves together by pure chance to form a complex living cell?

There are no known and demonstrated scientific and chemical processes by which this could occur. Nothing even remotely resembling it has ever been observed. It is all guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the proponents of this fairy tale for grownups.

If it is not as I have described, then explain how it happened. A Nobel prize awaits you.

What is your alternative then?

Either life came about by pure blind chance and put itself together.........or it did not.

It really is that simple. Would you agree?

0 Replies

Not necessarily. You do love to attempt to frame all debates in the terms you choose--such as "pure blind chance." Were one able to demonstrate the medium in which the first replicating proteins formed, such as clays, the obvious inference would be that such replicating proteins would form on any occassion on which the same chemicals were present in the same medium under the same conditions of heat, light, moisture, aeration, etc.

Which is not at all the same as just puking up one of your favorite contemptuous expressions, "pure, blind chance."

0 Replies

real life, If you wish to keep pushing creation, please show some evidence for it. Just because science has not answered all the questions posed concering our existence, it doesn't automatically resort to a "creator."
Did you know that scientists at Harvard developed a method to develop embryonic stem cells from skin cells?
Don't continue to poo-poo science just yet.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Just because science has not answered all the questions posed concering our existence, it doesn't automatically resort to a "creator."

Either--

Life occurred by chance; molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive.

or --

Life did not occur by chance.

Unless you've conceived of some third option, CI.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So Gould takes an assumption of anti-supernaturalism...

Science is limited to the assumption of naturalism, it's part of the definition. All scientific theories are restricted to this assumption, and Gould is not only free to use it as a limiting factor, but required to use it.

This doesn't mean that science must assume that there is no God, but only that science can not use God (or any supernatural cause) as an assumption in any of its theories. And this is why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Either--

Life occurred by chance; molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive.

or --

Life did not occur by chance.

And since science is not allowed to propose a theory in which some magical power created life, we are left with only one possible scientific theory; that life occurred by chance. A theory which is not in conflict with any of the evidence, and which is supported at greater and greater levels of detail as our knowledge grows.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Either--

Life occurred by chance; molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive.

This is a statement from authority. In this case it is not simply an authority we have no good reason to assume you possess, but you display an appalling ignorance of chemistry. The expression "molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive" is part an parcel with the sorts of witless appeals to emotional response which characterize the dogmatic. Molecules are formed from elements based upon chemical characteristics which are know and can be described. More complex molecules can only form in accordance with their inherent properties. What you wish to do is to belittle processes you cannot describe and do not well comprehend because you consider them to be at variance with your cherished exegesis. This is why it is so important to you to use expressions such as "blind chance"--you desparately need to create an impression of contemptuous implausibility to counter the silliness of the superstition to which you cling, which results in nonsense such as this:

Quote:

Life did not occur by chance.

Altogether, a typically pathetic attempt to use language to make up for the paucity of your contentions about deities and creation.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Either--

Life occurred by chance; molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive.

or --

Life did not occur by chance.

And since science is not allowed to propose a theory in which some magical power created life, we are left with only one possible scientific theory; that life occurred by chance. A theory which is not in conflict with any of the evidence, and which is supported at greater and greater levels of detail as our knowledge grows.

Science proposes theories that are observable.

The supposed evolution from molecules to man is by it's own definition NOT observable since it purportedly happened long ago and was observed by no one.

The idea of random molecules organizing themselves from simple substances into complex, functioning structures to form a living cell in a magical moment is certainly in contradiction with known properties of matter.

Scientific theories are also falsifiable, but your statement of there being only one possible scientific theory flies in the face of this requirement.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Either--

Life occurred by chance; molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive.

This is a statement from authority. In this case it is not simply an authority we have no good reason to assume you possess, but you display an appalling ignorance of chemistry. The expression "molecules blindly banging into molecules and coming alive" is part an parcel with the sorts of witless appeals to emotional response which characterize the dogmatic. Molecules are formed from elements based upon chemical characteristics which are know and can be described. More complex molecules can only form in accordance with their inherent properties. What you wish to do is to belittle processes you cannot describe and do not well comprehend because you consider them to be at variance with your cherished exegesis. This is why it is so important to you to use expressions such as "blind chance"--you desparately need to create an impression of contemptuous implausibility to counter the silliness of the superstition to which you cling, which results in nonsense such as this:

Quote:
Life did not occur by chance.

Altogether, a typically pathetic attempt to use language to make up for the paucity of your contentions about deities and creation.

It is hilarious to watch you run screaming and covering your ears at the words "blind chance" since it is necessary for your argument. Indeed it is the total argument of the evolutionist.

Rosborne, at least, was honest about that.

0 Replies

No one suggests there was any magical moment. Once again, having no argument to support your own silly thesis, you attempt slighting and contemptuous, and false, characterizations to bring into disrepute what you properly see as a solid refutation of your silly claims about creation.

0 Replies

"Scientific theories are also falsifiable, ..."

Please prove this ridiculous statement. If it's false, it's not science. No ifs, ands, and buts.

0 Replies

Today, people mistakenly think that spirituality has no relation to worldly life and vice versa. True divinity is a combination of spirituality and social obligations. National unity and social harmony are founded upon spirituality. It is the Divine that links spirituality and social existence. The Creator and the Cosmos are inextricably associated with each other. Hence, God should not be regarded as separate from creation. See God in the cosmos. For instance, here is a tumbler made of silver. The one who notices the silver in the tumbler, thinks only of the material base and not the form of the tumbler. The one who sees it as a tumbler, does not note its silver base. Only the person who can recognise both silver and tumbler can recognise that it is a silver tumbler. Likewise, without God, there is no creation. However, most people see only the creation; very few recognise that the creation is a projection of the Creator. It is essential that every human being should have the realization that without the Supreme there can be no cosmos

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Science proposes theories that are observable.

I'm confused. How would one observe a theory? Is a theory not an explanation for certain facts? How would one observe an explanation?

Is it possible to observe the theory of gravity? Of relativity? It seems to me it is not. It is, however, possible to observe evidence that supports the theory of gravity (things falling to earth) and relativity (nuclear explosions).

So what, I think, you should have said is not "Science proposes theories that are observable" but rather "Science proposes theories that are supported by observable evidence". I'm sure Farmerman can (and already has) supplied much observable evidence that supports the theory.

real life wrote:

The supposed evolution from molecules to man is by it's own definition NOT observable since it purportedly happened long ago and was observed by no one.

What does that prove? Black holes are, by definition, NOT observable, that doesn't prove they don't exist. The fact that something is not observable itself does not mean there is no observable evidence for it.

real life wrote:

The idea of random molecules organizing themselves from simple substances into complex, functioning structures to form a living cell in a magical moment is certainly in contradiction with known properties of matter.

Where did you get the idea that the theory of abiogenesis stated that molecules organized themselves into a living cell in a 'magic moment'? What's a 'magic moment', by the way? Do you mean to say that the molecules were given some quality streets?

Anyway, I'm a total layman in this discussion, as, it would seem, are you, but a quick google search found this:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
I'm sure Farmerman can give you better referneces, but for starters, what are your thoughts on this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The supposed evolution from molecules to man is by it's own definition NOT observable since it purportedly happened long ago and was observed by no one.

God isn't observable. Therefore, by your own admission, God does not exist. The Creation was also not observable. No one was around to observe God make Adam and Eve. Therefore, by your logic, Creationism is not true either.

Quote:

The idea of random molecules organizing themselves from simple substances into complex, functioning structures to form a living cell in a magical moment is certainly in contradiction with known properties of matter.

This displays an ignorance of quantum physics and chemistry. Not being a physicist nor a chemist, I cannot go into detail into how you are wrong, but I am sure someone who is will be all too happy to do so.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
The idea of random molecules organizing themselves from simple substances into complex, functioning structures to form a living cell in a magical moment is certainly in contradiction with known properties of matter.

This displays an ignorance of quantum physics and chemistry. Not being a physicist nor a chemist, I cannot go into detail into how you are wrong.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know