I'm Completely Lost...

[Snakefoot]

Just when I thought this thread was dead.

 

What about the earth being closer to the sun or further away we wouldn't be here? If that truly is the case, maybe that IS why we are HERE and NOT on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, or our moon. The conditions were right on earth for life as we know it to come about. The conditions were not right on the other planets as far as we know. Does that make sense?

Put another way: Earth was not made for Man; Man evolved from Earth and is part of it.

 

You say that like it's a proven fact. Things like that can't be proven. Saying man evolved from the earth is just as much of an opinion as saying earth was made for man is.

I write that like a non-anthropocentric argument. If you start any investigation or argument on the basis it is all about "us," all that follows simply falls apart in the face of evidence--or lack thereof, depending on your perspective.

 

The carcass did not evolve for the bacterium or maggot; the bacterium and maggot (actually whatever insect laid the egg that spawned the maggot) evolved for the carcass.

 

Hiya, maggot! I'm bacterium.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

No, it really isn't just an 'opinion', PI. I'm no biologist, and I'm not interested enough to lay out the case for you. But there's an enormous volume of evidence (fossils, radiometric dating, biology, DNA) that supports the theory of evolution. It's an explanation that nicely ties together many lifetimes' worth of information from a variety of scientific fields.

 

Whereas creationism (aka intelligent design) is based on religious dogma and argument from ignorance (that isn't JUST a pejorative- look up 'argument from ignorance': it's a logical fallacy that accounts for the majority of arguments made by creationists and the like). Creationism/ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't give any useful insight into the workings and organization of biology. It's complete and utter bullshit- not equivalent to evolution in any way except among the willfully ignorant.

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

[RankStranger]

Well yeah, it can't be proven absolutely. That's the unfortunate circumstance that we humans find ourselves in- we can rarely prove ANYTHING with absolute certainty (all though we can be VERY certain of some things in a relative sense). The same is true of Christians and other religious types (in fact their 'proof' is almost always far less rigorous)- the difference being that they freely PRETEND absolute certainty.

 

Somebody around here has a signature line that I always liked. Went something like this:

 

"Science provides proof without certainty. Religion provides certainty without proof."

[Legion]

Somebody around here has a signature line that I always liked. Went something like this:

 

"Science provides proof without certainty. Religion provides certainty without proof."

I thought that was noble Antlerman's signature for a while.

[Snakefoot]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

[Legion]

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

 

I'm not that stupid. Besides, evolution and dinosaur fossils are two completely different things.

[Snakefoot]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

 

I'm not that stupid. Besides, evolution and dinosaur fossils are two completely different things.

1. You statements were ambiguous and did not specify an evolution vs. religion context.

 

2. Religious Idiots are that stupid.

 

ETA: Evolution and dinosaur fossils are not two completely different things, certainly not in the mind of the Religious Idiot. Fossils add to the body of evidence for the age of Earth, thus contradicting young Earth creation. Further, a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth provides ample time for evolution to occur, and is supportive of the theory.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

 

I'm not that stupid. Besides, evolution and dinosaur fossils are two completely different things.

1. You statements were ambiguous and did not specify an evolution vs. religion context.

 

2. Religious Idiots are that stupid.

 

ETA: Evolution and dinosaur fossils are not two completely different things, certainly not in the mind of the Religious Idiot. Fossils add to the body of evidence for the age of Earth, thus contradicting young Earth creation. Further, a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth provides ample time for evolution to occur, and is supportive of the theory.

 

Unless you're talking about something I said a long time ago in this thread, I specifically said what I said, which was that man evolving from the earth can't be proven for sure. I can't tell if you're classifying me as a religious idiot or not, but I agree, religious people can be extremely stupid. The belief that the devil planted dinosaur bones in the ground just to fuck with our faith is proof of that.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

 

I'm not that stupid. Besides, evolution and dinosaur fossils are two completely different things.

Not really, fossils are used in the evolutionary theory.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

 

I'm not saying there's not evidence, I'm just saying, there's no way it can be proven that things happened exactly like scientists, which are finite human beings, said they did, unless someone were to go back and time and watch it happen. And that goes for religious claims too.

 

Scientist: A dinosaur died here.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Scientist: Here is its fossil skeleton. See?

Skeptic: Oh, yeah? Well, unless you can go back in time and witness that dinosaur dying there, you can't prove it.

Scientist: ???

 

Religious Idiot: A talking snake tricked Eve into eating the apple.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babbble says so.

Skeptic: That doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write down anything in a book.

Religious Idiot: But gawd wrote this book.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Religious Idiot: The babble says so.

Skeptic: ???

 

I'm not that stupid. Besides, evolution and dinosaur fossils are two completely different things.

Not really, fossils are used in the evolutionary theory.

 

Maybe they are, but they're still not the same thing. Wait a minute, you're saying evolution is a theory? I thought it was apparently proven? What exactly is the truth here? I don't know if I trust science any more than I do religion.

[Shyone]

Just when I thought this thread was dead.

 

What about the earth being closer to the sun or further away we wouldn't be here? If that truly is the case, maybe that IS why we are HERE and NOT on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, or our moon. The conditions were right on earth for life as we know it to come about. The conditions were not right on the other planets as far as we know. Does that make sense?

Put another way: Earth was not made for Man; Man evolved from Earth and is part of it.

 

You say that like it's a proven fact. Things like that can't be proven. Saying man evolved from the earth is just as much of an opinion as saying earth was made for man is.

Well, it is a proven fact. Rather than review the mountains of evidence that you can find in books, let me ask you this.

 

If there were life on another planet, are you positive that we could eat and digest it? Our entire being is made for this gravity, this atmosphere, this ecosystem and the animals and plants in it. Any system using other chemicals or other bonds besides the ones we have "grown up with (evolved with) would either be poison or as nutricious as sacchrine. Not to mention that one small set of mutations led to the formation of chloroplasts and the transformation of our atmosphere. It wasn't inevitable. Life existed before chloroplasts (duh), and other planets may not have O2 in their atmosphere in the same concentration as we do here on Earth.

 

Now, OTOH, if life on other planets had the exact same metabolism, then that would indicate that the system we have here is chemically the most ideal, but I seriously suspect that slight differences in the abundance of chemicals would have profound results for any life form. It would not preclude life, but it wouldn't be something we could eat.

 

We are a part of earth, and there is a reason we share our chemistry with other life forms - we came from the same source. How convenient!

[Shyone]

 

Maybe they are, but they're still not the same thing. Wait a minute, you're saying evolution is a theory? I thought it was apparently proven? What exactly is the truth here? I don't know if I trust science any more than I do religion.

Gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory seeks to explain and understand it.

Atoms are a fact. Atomic theory seeks to explain and understand it.

 

Does the Earth travel around the sun, or do you dismiss the Heliocentric theory?

 

Evolution is a fact. How it happened is best explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, although there may be some things that need to be studied. Genetic drift? Periods of sustained populations without evolutionary change? Stuff like that.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Just when I thought this thread was dead.

 

What about the earth being closer to the sun or further away we wouldn't be here? If that truly is the case, maybe that IS why we are HERE and NOT on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, or our moon. The conditions were right on earth for life as we know it to come about. The conditions were not right on the other planets as far as we know. Does that make sense?

Put another way: Earth was not made for Man; Man evolved from Earth and is part of it.

 

You say that like it's a proven fact. Things like that can't be proven. Saying man evolved from the earth is just as much of an opinion as saying earth was made for man is.

Well, it is a proven fact. Rather than review the mountains of evidence that you can find in books, let me ask you this.

 

If there were life on another planet, are you positive that we could eat and digest it? Our entire being is made for this gravity, this atmosphere, this ecosystem and the animals and plants in it. Any system using other chemicals or other bonds besides the ones we have "grown up with (evolved with) would either be poison or as nutricious as sacchrine. Not to mention that one small set of mutations led to the formation of chloroplasts and the transformation of our atmosphere. It wasn't inevitable. Life existed before chloroplasts (duh), and other planets may not have O2 in their atmosphere in the same concentration as we do here on Earth.

 

Now, OTOH, if life on other planets had the exact same metabolism, then that would indicate that the system we have here is chemically the most ideal, but I seriously suspect that slight differences in the abundance of chemicals would have profound results for any life form. It would not preclude life, but it wouldn't be something we could eat.

 

We are a part of earth, and there is a reason we share our chemistry with other life forms - we came from the same source. How convenient!

 

Guess it all depends on how you look at it. Either the earth was made for us, or we were made for the earth. I guess what a person believes all depends on which of those two views a person takes.

[Shyone]

Just when I thought this thread was dead.

 

What about the earth being closer to the sun or further away we wouldn't be here? If that truly is the case, maybe that IS why we are HERE and NOT on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, or our moon. The conditions were right on earth for life as we know it to come about. The conditions were not right on the other planets as far as we know. Does that make sense?

Put another way: Earth was not made for Man; Man evolved from Earth and is part of it.

 

You say that like it's a proven fact. Things like that can't be proven. Saying man evolved from the earth is just as much of an opinion as saying earth was made for man is.

Well, it is a proven fact. Rather than review the mountains of evidence that you can find in books, let me ask you this.

 

If there were life on another planet, are you positive that we could eat and digest it? Our entire being is made for this gravity, this atmosphere, this ecosystem and the animals and plants in it. Any system using other chemicals or other bonds besides the ones we have "grown up with (evolved with) would either be poison or as nutricious as sacchrine. Not to mention that one small set of mutations led to the formation of chloroplasts and the transformation of our atmosphere. It wasn't inevitable. Life existed before chloroplasts (duh), and other planets may not have O2 in their atmosphere in the same concentration as we do here on Earth.

 

Now, OTOH, if life on other planets had the exact same metabolism, then that would indicate that the system we have here is chemically the most ideal, but I seriously suspect that slight differences in the abundance of chemicals would have profound results for any life form. It would not preclude life, but it wouldn't be something we could eat.

 

We are a part of earth, and there is a reason we share our chemistry with other life forms - we came from the same source. How convenient!

 

Guess it all depends on how you look at it. Either the earth was made for us, or we were made for the earth. I guess what a person believes all depends on which of those two views a person takes.

Even the magical biblical view is that the earth was made first and man from the clay (material) of the earth. And women from ribs...

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Just when I thought this thread was dead.

 

What about the earth being closer to the sun or further away we wouldn't be here? If that truly is the case, maybe that IS why we are HERE and NOT on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, or our moon. The conditions were right on earth for life as we know it to come about. The conditions were not right on the other planets as far as we know. Does that make sense?

Put another way: Earth was not made for Man; Man evolved from Earth and is part of it.

 

You say that like it's a proven fact. Things like that can't be proven. Saying man evolved from the earth is just as much of an opinion as saying earth was made for man is.

Well, it is a proven fact. Rather than review the mountains of evidence that you can find in books, let me ask you this.

 

If there were life on another planet, are you positive that we could eat and digest it? Our entire being is made for this gravity, this atmosphere, this ecosystem and the animals and plants in it. Any system using other chemicals or other bonds besides the ones we have "grown up with (evolved with) would either be poison or as nutricious as sacchrine. Not to mention that one small set of mutations led to the formation of chloroplasts and the transformation of our atmosphere. It wasn't inevitable. Life existed before chloroplasts (duh), and other planets may not have O2 in their atmosphere in the same concentration as we do here on Earth.

 

Now, OTOH, if life on other planets had the exact same metabolism, then that would indicate that the system we have here is chemically the most ideal, but I seriously suspect that slight differences in the abundance of chemicals would have profound results for any life form. It would not preclude life, but it wouldn't be something we could eat.

 

We are a part of earth, and there is a reason we share our chemistry with other life forms - we came from the same source. How convenient!

 

Guess it all depends on how you look at it. Either the earth was made for us, or we were made for the earth. I guess what a person believes all depends on which of those two views a person takes.

Even the magical biblical view is that the earth was made first and man from the clay (material) of the earth. And women from ribs...

 

Yeah. But with that view, God still created the earth with humans in mind. Maybe evolution was the way it happened. I don't know. My only problem with that view is when it is said that it just happened, by itself, and that's it. How can something that doesn't exist yet come from nowhere and then start the evolutionary train going? There's no way it happened like that. Something can't come from nothing. And I know what someone is going to say next.... What about God? Basically, from what I can see, everyone believes that either God came from nothing, or the universe came from nothing. If a person who doesn't believe in God doesn't believe that the universe came from nothing, that would mean that it's always been here, in some form, that there was never a time where nothing existed... which is stupid. If the universe has always been, why? How? If not, what created it? What started it? I've asked these kinds of questions many times, but they still stand. It doesn't make the slightest amount of sense to me. But then again, look how fucked up I am in the head. What does it matter what I think? It apparently makes a whole lot of sense to atheists, or there wouldn't be any. There must be some huge, yet simple piece of the puzzle I've missed.

[RankStranger]

I don't believe that the universe came from nothing, and I'll venture that few non-religious people believe that.

 

That's just a christian-centric characterization of what non-religious people believe. And in my case, it's just plain incorrect.

[DesertBob]

Gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory seeks to explain and understand it.

Atoms are a fact. Atomic theory seeks to explain and understand it.

Does the Earth travel around the sun, or do you dismiss the Heliocentric theory?

Evolution is a fact. How it happened is best explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, although there may be some things that need to be studied. Genetic drift? Periods of sustained populations without evolutionary change? Stuff like that.

The problem with evolution is that it's not anywhere near as subject to experimental verification as the other examples you give. One cannot conduct experiments to prove evolution in the same sense that you can conduct experiments to prove gravitational attraction, because gravitational attraction is a current phenomenon, and it's practical to construct experiments and gather data about how it works. Evolution either is not a current phenomenon, or is happening so slowly that it's not practical to observe it. Without a time machine, we pick through fragmentary evidence and piece it together as best we can, but it's not the same as dropping a hammer and measuring its acceleration and force of impact.

 

I'm not suggesting that evolution isn't true or likely to be substantially true; I'm simply saying that your analogies break down a bit.

 

Also, past fiascoes like the Piltdown Man hoax suggest to me that too many people WANT to believe in evolution (or desperately WANT to disprove any form of creation or intelligent design or influence). In other words, evolutionists can be just as credulous as creationists, in their own way. And just as threatened by divergent points of view, judging from the unnecessary histrionics of some who attack disbelievers in evolution.

 

You can regard the detailed reconstructions and conclusions that evolutionists draw from a couple of bone fragments as amazing, or as highly suspect, depending on how you choose to view it.

 

I don't find evolutionary theory as satisfying or clear and unambiguous as many do, despite the fact I think it's likely to be substantially correct. I suspect that evolution will eventually prove "close enough for practical purposes" in the same way that Newtonian physics, while now known to be not exactly correct, works well enough for day to day purposes.

[Shyone]

How can something that doesn't exist yet come from nowhere and then start the evolutionary train going? There's no way it happened like that.

 

I guess what confuses me is that I have a pretty good idea about how things happen. Basic chemistry is no mystery, and chemical reactions are all around us. Even right now in our bodies.

 

Once you have matter, anything possible is - possible, and so everything from the formation of amino acids (also found on meteorites), carbon binding with oxygen (CO2), carbon binding with hydrogen (e.g. methane CH4), and the ball starts rolling. Maybe you should consider taking some organic chemistry and biochemistry.

 

The "something from nothing" only refers to the creation of mass perhaps 10 billion years before evolution began, but evidence for any creation is really shaky... Still, the "vacuum decay" or "vacuum quantum fluctuation" theories make more sense than a giant Santa Claus that "sees you when you're sleeping". Or uses his magical spying powers to make us good while threatening us. Well, for me, that's someone else's mythology. I may not have all the answers, but given 5 possibilities, two of which we are not aware of, and one possible god, I'll take any of the above except gods. Why add another layer on top of nature?

 

Maybe you might seriously consider going into astrophysics and/or cosmology. Sometimes seeking answers leads us to new places on our journey through life.

[RankStranger]

Well Bob, that's just the nature of a 'soft science' like biology. If 'hard' evidence is what you crave, though, there's more than enough out there to make a case based on radiometric dating and DNA alone.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

How can something that doesn't exist yet come from nowhere and then start the evolutionary train going? There's no way it happened like that.

 

I guess what confuses me is that I have a pretty good idea about how things happen. Basic chemistry is no mystery, and chemical reactions are all around us. Even right now in our bodies.

 

Once you have matter, anything possible is - possible, and so everything from the formation of amino acids (also found on meteorites), carbon binding with oxygen (CO2), carbon binding with hydrogen (e.g. methane CH4), and the ball starts rolling. Maybe you should consider taking some organic chemistry and biochemistry.

 

The "something from nothing" only refers to the creation of mass perhaps 10 billion years before evolution began, but evidence for any creation is really shaky... Still, the "vacuum decay" or "vacuum quantum fluctuation" theories make more sense than a giant Santa Claus that "sees you when you're sleeping". Or uses his magical spying powers to make us good while threatening us. Well, for me, that's someone else's mythology. I may not have all the answers, but given 5 possibilities, two of which we are not aware of, and one possible god, I'll take any of the above except gods. Why add another layer on top of nature?

 

Maybe you might seriously consider going into astrophysics and/or cosmology. Sometimes seeking answers leads us to new places on our journey through life.

 

In that case, show me how matter could have come about by itself. Then, and only then, will I consider it a possibility.

[RankStranger]

Do you hold 'god' to the same standard?

 

I mean, we're expected to believe that it has always existed... which is pretty much the same thing as coming about by itself.

[Guest Perfect Insanity]

Do you hold 'god' to the same standard?

 

I mean, we're expected to believe that it has always existed... which is pretty much the same thing as coming about by itself.

 

My question has nothing to do with the existence of God. All I want to know is, how is it possible for mass to come about by itself all those years ago. Are you dodging the question?

[Shyone]

Do you hold 'god' to the same standard?

 

I mean, we're expected to believe that it has always existed... which is pretty much the same thing as coming about by itself.

 

My question has nothing to do with the existence of God. All I want to know is, how is it possible for mass to come about by itself all those years ago. Are you dodging the question?

As much as it is a question of physics, it is also a question of philosophy.

 

Consider the possibilities... The expansion/inflation of the universe is a reflection of unknown energy. E=mc². Could space itself be the fount of mass?

 

Virtual particles occur in a vacuum. This, and other characteristics of vacuums, make creation of matter via quantum vacuum fluctuations possible.

 

A third possiblity is derived from loop quantum gravity theory - basically saying that although we can't see "before" the big bang because of the restrictions of mass (and all that jazz), there were other universes before ours that cycle repeatedly ad infinitum.

 

There are perhaps other possibilities. Looking at each, reviewing what we can see, combining the data with models and comparing the models is what Hawking and other astrophysicists do all the time.

 

Oh, I forgot Yahweh, the theory of the ancient tribal god of a semitic people in the middle east. *Poof*

[RankStranger]

Do you hold 'god' to the same standard?

 

I mean, we're expected to believe that it has always existed... which is pretty much the same thing as coming about by itself.

 

My question has nothing to do with the existence of God. All I want to know is, how is it possible for mass to come about by itself all those years ago. Are you dodging the question?

 

No I'm not dodging the question. I'll freely admit that I have no clue where matter comes from. But you're telling me that you won't believe that matter spontaneously appears unless you see it yourself. Are you willing to believe that God just spontaneously exists without seeing it for yourself?

 

Hell, at least you can see and verify that matter exists NOW. We can't even verify that 'god' exists NOW- or that 'he' ever existed.