I'm sorry, but I must -- Evolution!

[Ouroboros]

Sooo... does the fact that we know almost nothing about physics before the Planck time mean that modern physics doesn't work?

Was that question to me or to the general public?

I'm not sure I can connect your question to my post.

 

---

 

But to answer you. Of cource modern physics works without all the pieces in the puzzle.

 

Like Newtons laws works in a set framework, but can't be used at high speed, when relativity takes over, or at quantum level where quantum physics takes over. It's all in the framework.

 

The formulas doesn't replace reality (whatever that is), in only explains the process and the relations between the participants.

[MrSpooky]

I was addressing the claim of whether abiogenesis was relevant to evolution.

[Ouroboros]

Ok.

 

I was a bit confused. But that's a normal state for me...

[Godless Dave]

Scientists don't have an explanation of the "core issue" of why gravity exists, but they've managed to come up with a working theory of gravity. (Except at the quantum level).

[invictus1967]

That is my POINT!!!!

 

Why do you people insist on hiding behind name calling and insults?

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of where life came from. You can’t deny that so you result to “that isn’t the point, F-you, you idiot”.

 

Where life came from is EXACTLY the point. That is what science wants to know.

 

“Where did we come from?”

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

Creation does.

 

You may not agree with Creationism, but it is a much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be. It starts from the BEGINNNG and brings us to where we are. Evolution doesn’t.

[MrSpooky]

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

Creation does.

 

You may not agree with Creationism, but it is a much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be. It starts from the BEGINNNG and brings us to where we are. Evolution doesn’t.

 

Before the advent of modern astronomy, church fathers thought that the Earth was the center of the universe based on their religious beliefs.

 

Why should we lend Creationism any credibility in the realm of abiogenesis just because our knowledge of biochemistry doesn't extend that far yet? ESPECIALLY when Creationism has a resounding lack of evidence for their claims?

[invictus1967]

thankful,

 

Do you even understand what I am saying?

 

I am agreeing with you and the others that evolution does NOT address the origins of life.

 

Creation does.

 

It is not fair to the evolutionist to compare the 2 because evolution is not as encompassing a theory as creation.

 

Some even argue that evolution is simply a sub-contractor for creation.

 

You should understand what I am saying more than anyone here because you are the one that started a thread entitled “Assuming that there is a creator…”

 

--------------------

 

Spooky,

 

Are you trying to insinuate that evolution has an abundance of evidence????

 

Evolution doesn’t even have a foundation. To even begin discussing it, you must first assume life was created by either a deity or some process yet to be determined.

[Mr. Neil]

That is my POINT!!!!

 

Why do you people insist on hiding behind name calling and insults?

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of where life came from. You can’t deny that so you result to “that isn’t the point, F-you, you idiot”.

 

Where life came from is EXACTLY the point. That is what science wants to know.

 

“Where did we come from?”

Sorry, Invictus. Science is not a person that wants a particular question answered. It's a methodology of investigation. It's a tool that we use as human beings because we want to know why the natural world works the way it does. There are lots of questions, which science is used to answer.

 

There is no one goal of science.

 

The theory of evolution is a theory which answers a particular inquiry postulated by Darwin in relation to biological commonality. Not "where did we come from?".

 

And we've told you this over and over and over and over and over and over.

 

So yes, we're going to call you an idiot, because quite frankly, either you're too stupid to understand why evolution addresses what it addresses, or you're dishonest and have no interest in the right answers. Either way, arguing with you has proven futile.

 

Given that I've personally spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to explain this to you, I think I'm perfectly justified to bring your intelligence and integrity into question. It's clear that one or both are lacking.

 

Of course, if you don't like that we question your intelligence based on your responses, then I would suggest the ignore feature. But I will simply not let you come onto this site and spew your nonsense as though you know what you're talking about.

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

Creation does.

Too bad creation is not only not a science, but it's been discredited by molecular biology. Common broken genes shared between common species are a "key issue" that cannot be accounted for by special creation. Evolution can!

 

You may not agree with Creationism, but it is a much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be. It starts from the BEGINING and brings us to where we are. Evolution doesn’t.

Creationism is not science. There's no methodology. Creationism is a practice of denying evolution while trying to put Genesis in its place.

 

This becomes evident when you assume evolution false, ironically enough, because once you get rid of evolution, then the farce of creationism is exposed. When it has nothing to attack, then it becomes what it really is... religious belief based on the mythical storybook of Genesis, written at a time in history when men didn't know a damn thing about biology!

 

This is not science, Invictus, and you know it!

 

And pardon me for answering other people's questions but...

 

It is not fair to the evolutionist to compare the 2 because evolution is not as encompassing a theory as creation.

Fuck you.

 

The main problem with creationism is that it simply isn't science. Period.

 

Second, the biologists have had to defend evolution from the attack of the creationists who insist on comparing creation to evolution. And let's not kid ourselves here. By "creation", we mean the creation in Genesis. That is, after all, the foundation of "creation science". Always has been. So we are talking about the Bible.

 

...I certainly wouldn't want to assume you meant "intelligent design". That would be taking you out of context.

 

Evolution is in direct contrast to special creation, which is the notion that all life on planet Earth was created at the same time. You should know that, because, even though you quoted them out of context, you provided quotes in which Darwin explicitly cast doubt upon special creation.

 

In fact, I might as well point out the blatant hypocrisy of your position, because for some reason you want to include abiogenesis as part of evolution, but you don't want to include big bang cosmology. Other creationists use creationism to subplant all of those fields of science, and yet you're only using it against two.

 

Some even argue that evolution is simply a sub-contractor for creation.

Absolutely not. Creationism is founded in Christian literalism. There is no place for modern biology (or any field of science, for that matter) within the context of Genesis. In order to accept Genesis, one has to throw out the scientific process.

 

What we suggested is that evolution could be the product of an intelligent designer, for who is to say that a designer could not use evolution? But when you talk about creationism, you're talking about Yahwey, and therefore you've automatically disqualified evolution.

 

Your claim is false, for we have said no such thing.

 

You should understand what I am saying more than anyone here because you are the one that started a thread entitled “Assuming that there is a creator…”

A creator. Not Yahwey. Again, by bringing in creationism, you've employed Yahwey. Good job, champ! The point of that topic was for you to prove that it's Yahwey, and you don't seem capable of doing that, so it seems that it's creationism that has no foundation.

 

Evolution doesn’t even have a foundation. To even begin discussing it, you must first assume life was created by either a deity or some process yet to be determined.

Or suspend both and just work from a foundation of commonality, as that is the only thing evolution was ever meant to address. Curious that you keep insisting that a theory about a process of biology should also include a theory of where life came from.

 

The problem you seem to be having is that evolution doesn't have the foundation that you want it to have. At it's foundation, evolution addresses the phenomenon of biological commonality, but for some reason, you want it to address origins. And why? Because creationism addresses origins. Science isn't monkey-see-monkey-do, Invictus. Evolution is not obligated to changed just because a bunch of religious assholes pretending to be scientists ball up their fists and stomp their feet.

 

So what about those other issues? The issue of origins? The phenomenon of replication? That's what other theories are for. That's why evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang all fall under different fields of science. Scientists are not leaving anything out by simply categorizing these things. Why is this difficult to understand?

[Ouroboros]

Creation doesn't explain why the malaria bacteria is partially an algea.

Evolution does.

[invictus1967]

Get off it Neil, “F-you” is about the only direct thing you said. The rest was just circling mumbo-jumbo.

 

I wrote “Some even argue that evolution is simply a sub-contractor for creation”. And you replied- “absolutely not”----------Are you saying you have never heard of people trying to argue that God (the Creator in their opinion) used evolution as his means to bring about species?????

 

Or maybe you just don’t understand what a sub-contractor is.

 

You have harped to the point of nausea that evolution is not about the origin of life. When I agree with you, simply stating evolution doesn’t address the issue, you go on one of your “F-you” tangents.

 

You said science is not a person. Maybe not, but it is studied by PEOPLE searching for answers. Not a particular answer, but answers to particular questions.

 

The biggest question of all is “where did we come from?” It encompasses more than the emergence of a species. It means where did life come from? Where did this place holding the life come from?

 

Why can’t you see that it all must work together or none of it works at all????

 

------------------------------------------

 

HanSolo,

 

Do you have any references on this whole “malaria bacteria is partially an algae” thing?

 

Can I assume that such references will include some form of phylogeny thrown in for good measure?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo,

 

Do you have any references on this whole “malaria bacteria is partially an algae” thing?

 

Can I assume that such references will include some form of phylogeny thrown in for good measure?

 

Damn! I just had to open your message and read it.

It's from a book called "Evolution, the triumph of an idea", by Carl Zimmer.

[Mr. Neil]

Get off it Neil, “F-you” is about the only direct thing you said. The rest was just circling mumbo-jumbo.

That's easy to say when you skip over everything else I said.

 

I wrote “Some even argue that evolution is simply a sub-contractor for creation”. And you replied- “absolutely not”----------Are you saying you have never heard of people trying to argue that God (the Creator in their opinion) used evolution as his means to bring about species?????

Nope!

 

The setence before that, you mentioned "the theory of creation", which we all know to be creationism, a form of biblical literalism based disguised as science. You then dared to suggest that some of us have implied that evolution is a subcontractor of creation , which we said no such thing.

 

We agree that it could be the will of a creator (i.e., an intelligent designer). There are more philosophical reasons to reject the designer. But make no mistake... Terms such as creation, creationism, and creation science are all based on the book of Genesis. I'm only using these words in their proper context, Invictus.

 

I think you mean to say "intelligent design", but you're too stubborn to admit that you made a verbal boo-boo.

 

Or maybe you just don’t understand what a sub-contractor is.

Or maybe you didn't read the part where I revealed that you're actually talking about the Bible, with which evolution isn't compatible anyway. That's what happens when you skim people's posts.

 

You have harped to the point of nausea that evolution is not about the origin of life. When I agree with you, simply stating evolution doesn’t address the issue, you go on one of your “F-you” tangents.

I'm not denying that. I understand this. But then you treat it as though this is a problem, which it is not.

 

Evolution, by nature of its inquiry, leaves the question of original open. We agree that it doesn't address origins, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to!

 

Your expectations are disingenuous.

 

You said science is not a person. Maybe not, but it is studied by PEOPLE searching for answers. Not a particular answer, but answers to particular questions.

Great, so let's reserve one field of study per question, okay? Biological commonality is a different inquiry than origins.

 

The biggest question of all is “where did we come from?” It encompasses more than the emergence of a species. It means where did life come from? Where did this place holding the life come from?

Fine. You're talking about abiogenesis. You want an non-theistic explanation of origins. What does this have to do with evolution?

 

Why can’t you see that it all must work together or none of it works at all????

I understand that, but that doesn't mean that we have to squeeze it all into one field of inquiry. Clearly there is a difference between the two inquiries that I have identified, and you are simply unwilling to admit it.

[Amanda]

That's why evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang all fall under different fields of science.  Scientists are not leaving anything out by simply categorizing these things.  Why is this difficult to understand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

MR NEIL and HANSOLO, What would it mean if something was written over four thousand years ago, designated as an inspiration from a divine, supreme being, that's revelations are in total harmony with what is just now being discovered today in science? If that text is saying what we are JUST NOW finding out in science, although not presented in the vocabulary science uses... would that attribute SOME validation to a supreme resource that we can not explain scientifically today?

 

And if someone who received and communicated those aspects as from a divine source, why would they do that instead of just claiming the theory themself? And is it possible that science may ultimately define God and they become one?

 

And INVICTUS... I apologize for what I said to you in a previous post... as I was just starting to follow this fascinating thread between you three, and stepped in at a point I perhaps wrongfully considered out of line... it seems to me that all three of you are immensely enjoying this heated debate the way it is... I am too. Apologies extended!

[Ouroboros]

MR NEIL and HANSOLO, What would it mean if something was written over four thousand years ago, designated as an inspiration from a divine, supreme being, that's revelations are in total harmony with what is just now being discovered today in science? If that text is saying what we are JUST NOW finding out in science, although not presented in the vocabulary science uses... would that attribute SOME validation to a supreme resource that we can not explain scientifically today?

That would include every religious book ever written, not only one book. There are a lot of good morals and good teachings from other religions, and your view of who God is has to be established from the common view of all religions, not just one.

 

Why do I say this? Because: if God exists, he wouldn’t choose one sect or a one group of people or one single person, to speak his mind and will. He would go to many people and spread the knowledge. That’s the part the Bible is really wrong, when it claims ownership of faith.

 

And if someone who received and communicated those aspects as from a divine source, why would they do that instead of just claiming the theory themself? And is it possible that science may ultimately define God and they become one?

If God exists, then science eventually will be forced to admit God. But then if God does not exist, science will fail to prove God, but the religious will still claim God exists. So we won’t be any closer or the wiser if God doesn’t exist. Our fight can only stop if God truly exists.

 

And INVICTUS... I apologize for what I said to you in a previous post... as I was just starting to follow this fascinating thread between you three, and stepped in at a point I perhaps wrongfully considered out of line... it seems to me that all three of you are immensely enjoying this heated debate the way it is... I am too. Apologies extended!

We want all input. Everyone is welcome, don’t feel like you’re interfering, you have the right to participate.

[LloydDobler]

I think the biggest problem blocking understanding here is that yes we all see that evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects...

 

BUT

 

Evolution defines and rules out certain forms of abiogenesis. The common ancestor or changing species concepts that are proven, rule out the concept that everything was created as we see it today.

 

It doesn't define how things came into existence, but it certainly defines how a few things did NOT come into existence.

 

That's why christians fight evolution with an abiogenesis argument. They don't see a difference between any evolved species and the very first living creature. It's an all or nothing proposition. If you say any species came from a different one, rather than god, it pokes a huge hole in their entire bullshit story.

[Ouroboros]

If it's so wrong for scientists to break up between abiogenesis and evolution, why do we have Intelligent Design, Creationists, Apologists and so on, why don't bring them all together into the common description: Christians!

 

I wonder what Christians are trying to hide, when they come up with these alternative names for themselves? ID or Creationists, doesn't it just mean you believe in Bible Genesis ch1-2? Apologist, doesn't it just mean you believe the Bible to be infallible?

 

And if we find one apologetic christian that make a mistake or is racist, we should have to make the same conclusions as Christians do, one person wrong in their midst, the whole group is at fault! I'm thinking about the article about Darwin was racist, so evolution is wrong etc. That kind of thinking can be used by us too.

[Mr. Neil]

If God exists, then science eventually will be forced to admit God. But then if God does not exist, science will fail to prove God, but the religious will still claim God exists. So we won’t be any closer or the wiser if God doesn’t exist.

What he said.

[crazy-tiger]

That is my POINT!!!!

 

Why do you people insist on hiding behind name calling and insults?

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of where life came from. You can’t deny that so you result to “that isn’t the point, F-you, you idiot”.

You know... we've been telling you that exact point for a while.

 

Courtesy of Neil...

Where life came from is EXACTLY the point. That is what science wants to know.

 

“Where did we come from?”

 

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

Creation does.

So does Abiogenesis...

You may not agree with Creationism, but it is a much more complete theory in regards to explaining how we came to be. It starts from the BEGINNNG and brings us to where we are. Evolution doesn’t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shit, but you're stupid.

Evolution only deals with LIFE, not with anything that came beforehand. That's the realm of other theories.

 

The kind of argument you're trying to use is that if a theory doesn't cover EVERYTHING then it's no good.

 

I've got a theory that states you're a human. Using your arguments, that theory is wrong because it doesn't deal with everything.

 

 

Go away, do some research, get some knowledge of logic and reason, do some more research (since you'll have ignored anything that contradicts your belief the first time) and then come back.

 

But only come back if you're able to understand and accept what you get told here...

[spamandham]

Evolution doesn’t address the key issue of life beginning.

 

Evolution also does not explain gravity, but then again, gravity is not formally a part of evolutionary theory.

 

Abiogenesis is also not formally part of evolutionary theory, it's currently a subset of organic chemistry, though I suspect the lines will eventually blur together.

 

However, abiogenesis is a field of study in its own right, and if you would bother to do a modicum of research, you would already have known that, and would be familiar with the experiments, models, and simulations that have already been performed.

 

But just for fun, suppose you were right and evolution were recognized by all to be bunk. How does that prove Biblical creationism?

 

Also, if creationism is a science, then what activities are being undertaken by creationists to attempt to falsify it?

[MrSpooky]

MR NEIL and HANSOLO, What would it mean if something was written over four thousand years ago, designated as an inspiration from a divine, supreme being, that's revelations are in total harmony with what is just now being discovered today in science? If that text is saying what we are JUST NOW finding out in science, although not presented in the vocabulary science uses... would that attribute SOME validation to a supreme resource that we can not explain scientifically today?

 

Too bad prophecies only come true with a bunch of spin-doctoring and the magic of hindsight.

[Amanda]

Why do I say this? Because: if God exists, he wouldn’t choose one sect or a one group of people or one single person, to speak his mind and will. He would go to many people and spread the knowledge. That’s the part the Bible is really wrong, when it claims ownership of faith.

If God exists, then science eventually will be forced to admit God. But then if God does not exist, science will fail to prove God, but the religious will still claim God exists. So we won’t be any closer or the wiser if God doesn’t exist. Our fight can only stop if God truly exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HanSolo, I DO agree that 'God" does NOT choose one sect of people to reveal himself, yet MAY enter into discourse with us through ONE person who chose to 'listen' to him at that time and reveal/record what he has perceived. You and I can agree to disagree, on if the Bible really claims that it is the ONLY truth or claims any ownership of faith. I don't think so, yet perhaps many of its fans do.

 

Perhaps all the spiritual books say something in regards to evolution, and I have unfortunately not been afforded the opportunity or gumption to have seeked such an encompassing spiritual knowledge to present it from such a multitude of formats. However, I do not deny it exists. Having said that, now what would it mean if one of those many ancient 'sects' presented a theory over four thousand years ago, claiming to be from a divine source, that is paralell to, in harmony with, consistent to scientific researcher's present findings today regarding evolution? I'm just asking, what would be the most probable meaning of THAT?

 

Once you questioned me about what would happen if I EVEN considered the possibility of there is no God... ... and I must say, the manner in which you proposed it, it rocked my world for a moment or two.. thank you for that!!! Yet I had to think for a moment that "I am" here and a stream of conscious thought process is present in some kind of awareness, and what makes that happen has an originating force that came from somewhere... and out of that awareness, you can only cause me to assess my previous understanding of God and challenge me into what I might perceive to be a more accurate assessment of God for now in my life.

 

As I discover deeper revelations than its surface from the Bible, it lets ME know there is something greater than what modern man can explain. Clear to ME. Perhaps what you call science and what I call God are the same things... just two of the many ways in which our evolution in our interpretions of its true identity will be getting us both to the same conclusion? Who knows? The thrust of this post, however, is to answer the question in paragraph two. Of course I welcome ANYONE's response.

[Saviourmachine]

Evolution doesn’t even have a foundation. To even begin discussing it, you must first assume life was created by either a deity or some process yet to be determined.

I ask you, are Maxwell's equations founded upon the behaviour of light / electromagnetic waves when traveling through space or are they founded upon the way photons are emitted? Can you say anything about the behaviour of light without taking its origin in consideration? Yes, of course, by measuring etc. Hypotheses that can be falsified, that are solid foundations.

 

Both assumptions you mentioned could become justified some time (diety or process). Do you have material that takes abiogenesis into question? Can you post that in a new thread?

[invictus1967]

Neil,

 

You once told me that I had lost credibility. With all the “F-you” comments and not recognizing how some do argue that evolution was an agent of the Creator, what does that say about your credibility?

 

Why so hostile when I admit to your repeated assertion that evolution doesn’t address the origin of life?

 

----------------------------------------

 

HanSolo,

 

I don’t not have a copy of that book; so could you please provide the references that Zimmer used? Specifically the reference for the “malaria bacteria is partially an algae” comment.

 

Also, you wrote - “I wonder what Christians are trying to hide”. Well, I wonder what evolutionists are trying to hide.

 

Why do they insist on picking up the story in the middle? What about the beginning of the story scares them?

 

----------------------------------------

 

You folks just won’t admit it. The bigger question is “where did we come from?”

 

That is the question that has motivated more scientist than any other. The theory of evolution doesn’t even address the core of that question.

 

Creation does. It is a more complete theory than evolution because it starts at the beginning rather than picking up the process in the middle.

[crazy-tiger]

Neil,

 

You once told me that I had lost credibility. With all the “F-you” comments and not recognizing how some do argue that evolution was an agent of the Creator, what does that say about your credibility?

 

Why so hostile when I admit to your repeated assertion that evolution doesn’t address the origin of life?

Because you keep insisting that evolution is somehow "incomplete" until it does.

 

You are deliberately ignoring me and others when we kindly point out, for the Nth time, that a totally seperate theory deals with that.

I wonder what Christians are trying to hide.

Well, I wonder what evolutionists are trying to hide.

 

Why do they insist on picking up the story in the middle? What about the beginning of the story scares them?

Yet again, you insist that it has to explain EVERYTHING to be valid...

 

The theory of Gravity doesn't explain everything... does that mean it's not valid? (and where does it explain it in the Bible?)

 

You are either extremely ignorant or extremely stupid... Take your pick.

You folks just won’t admit it. The bigger question is “where did we come from?”

Says who? Apart from you that is.

That is the question that has motivated more scientist than any other. The theory of evolution doesn’t even address the core of that question.

Earth to Invictus... are you listening?

 

The vast majority of theories don't even address the core of that question. Are you going to proclaim all of them as "incomplete" as well?

Creation does. It is a more complete theory than evolution because it starts at the beginning rather than picking up the process in the middle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello??

 

Evolution ONLY deals with what happens to life. Abiogenesis only deals with what happens before life. Theory of Relativity only deals with relative movements in space and time. Computational Theory only deals with Mathematics. Continental drift theory only deals with the movement of continents. (I'd list more but you've either got the point or just gonna ignore them)

 

Are they all "incomplete" or are they all SPECIFIC?

 

 

You know... if you ignore this, then we'll know your ignorance is deliberate... if we didn't already.

[Amanda]

Too bad prophecies only come true with a bunch of spin-doctoring and the magic of hindsight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mr Spooky, I understand your sentiments.

 

As in science, when things are happening... it is often not understood readily, and we now know... often initially misrepresented. It is with research and comparison to other ideas within those accepted confines (that we have come to accept in our evolving journey to know everything) that we can finally think we know how that particular aspect fits into the whole, in harmony with what we NOW consider to be the most accurate knowledge. That is how we learn and eliminate the 'kinks'. Many may refuse to use Biblical insights to validate science, and that's certainly anyone's right, but why is it not someone else's right to use science to validate Biblical interpretations, as we can seek to explain (without altering) any contradictions within itself? Isn't this much the way science does?

 

Further, it is common with some scientist to give their spin on why the latter theory is still prominent, while others support the new. Who knows who is right... we just seem to acknowledge the whole 'science' as that which gets the popular votes. That can be applied to other areas... which doesn't always suggests it is correct. As in Galileo and others...