|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Here's the problem.
Creationists and other practitioners of witchcraft want to use terms like "Missing Link" and then attribute them to the serious and ongoing discussion of evolution. These people were never a part of the discussion in the first place, so, as one would expect they don't have a grasp of the terms they are using. Think of it like a 5 year old attending hanging out at an adult cocktail party. While Daddy is talking about how things are going down at the nuclear plant, she pipes in using one of the words she's just heard. "I wish we had more coolant." Awww, that's so cute. She said "coolant". Sally has learned a new word. Sally, however, should not be dictating Kansas' nuclear physics curiculum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right? Curious that you ignored the rest of the explanation for the "links" between form one and ten. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CTD writes: I note that it differs from past evolutionist definition(s) considerably. Uh, no it doesn't. Every lifeform that has ever existed, except the very first lifeform and those that are extinct, is transitional. Just look at any tree of life, a concept conceived even before Darwin. Unless you're at the tree's root (the first life) or at the end of a branch (extinct), you're transitional between lifeforms both above and below you on the tree. It looks like this discussion with you is going to have to go through two phases. We're in the first phase now, convincing you of what science actually says. Once you understand that, then the second phase would be a return to explaining why the Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is the actual topic of this thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I just want to add to Percy's comment.
CTD writes: Some still continue to search for transitional forms which would meet the standards of the past. If I missed it earlier in the thread I am sorry, but I wonder what you think Darwin expected on the discovery of the first "transitional form". What was this creature supposed to have and not have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Sure, I should bother with this crap. I've seen all the phoney 'justifications' I can stomach just now for redefining terms, and the denials are based on... "Nothing of substance" is the most polite phrasing that comes to mind.
I did think of one more thing evolution 'theories', big bang 'theories', and abiogenesis 'theories' all have in common: they're all continually being revised. What's yesterday's 'fact' is today's rubbish in all three cases. The prepackaged response is always "That's how science works. You just must not know the first thing about science." Well, in any other field of science (i.e. legit science) when a theory or hypothesis is tenuously maintained, they don't go around propagandizing it as 'fact'. They don't question the sanity of persons who question it and search for alternatives. The only other thing defended in this manner is Einsteinian Relativity, and that's primarily due to its links to the big bang. But outside of that, can anyone name a branch of science (or pseudoscience) which behaves in this manner? I doubt it very much. So, we can dismiss the "that's how science works, fool" nonsense, and do so easily. What's left? Denial. It should be good for several chuckles. Remember, these people claim to know more than most folks about evolution. But they'll gladly deny the changes we all know have taken place. They think it helps them "win" the argument. I can hardly wait to be told I "made it all up in my own head". Now if there are fresh young visitors, here's how you can go about looking this up. Use an "advanced search" and look for stuff like 'will need to be revised' or 'may soon be revised' or 'scientists are rethinking' along with any of these three fairy tales. Should get tons of results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did think of one more thing evolution 'theories', big bang 'theories', and abiogenesis 'theories' all have in common: they're all continually being revised. What's yesterday's 'fact' is today's rubbish in all three cases. Of course, that simply shows how ignorant you are about science or even learning. Hopefully what we know is always being revised. As we learn more we can discard that which is shown to be false, toss ideas like the World-Wide Flood in the last 6000 years or so on the trashbin where they belong. You also seem to continue to confuse Fact and Theory. Had this not be pointed out to you many times, I might think you were simply ignorant, however since even after the difference has been explained, you continue the misrepresentation, I must wonder what your motive is for repeating falsehoods. We can look at the evidence and see that there was a time on earth when there was no life. We can look at the evidence and see that now there is life on earth. Therefore, Abiogenesis is a fact. Then there are the Theories of Abiogenesis, the explanations of how that might have happened. There we are dealing not with fact but with theory. However, again, some ideas such as life being created over a period of six days or that plants existed first on land we know are wrong, and so they should be tossed on the trashheap where they belong. Then there is the Fact of Evolution. There is no doubt evolution happened, we can see that there was a time when there was no land life, later there was; that there was a time when all life was simpler, and that later other forms are found. But there is also the Theory of Evolution, the explanation of how all the change came about. But even there we do know certain things; for example we know that man is not very unique and is a fairly recently evolved life form, that was NOT around from the beginning. The FACTS remain facts. As we learn more, the theories change, as they must unless one is totally dishonest. Revision is the only honest alternative. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Guess we`ll have to run a litmus test in future on all the scientists who post on EvC. Do you do 'science' or 'hard science'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Missed this. Oh well, what I said pretty much applies. I'm not really hot to discuss the obvious.
I used RAZD's link & checked out Darwin on lots of stuff. The place is more complete than my old Darwin bookmark, and has a lot of his later works of fiction along with those of some of his buddies. In 'Origin of Species' Darwin uses the term just like one would expect. As time goes by, he and the others begin to abuse the term considerably. Now I know where, when, and how it started. It's no surprise that his children have carried on with the practice. It's ironic that you guys want to render the term meaningless. What if one turns up years hence, after you've sold everyone on the new definition? But you're not concerned about that. The term could just be altered again, right? Or maybe you've given up hope? A better question might be: What are all the diggers looking for? More specimens of the same species? New species? Transitional forms? And would anyone care to name the creationist who coined the term "missing link"? Please don't give credit to me on this one. I must humbly deny even the most indirect hint of a contribution in this case. It all serves to highlight what I was just saying about the multitude of changes the story has undergone. The story changes. The textbooks don't. When creationists argue against the story, if they argue against the version in textbooks (and they must tackle all versions), they use yesterday's language (invariably invented by evolutionists). They're portrayed as either "behind the times" or "liars making up terms 'science' doesn't even use". Why? Why, why, why can't you folks make an honest case? Or would you prefer: Why don't you make an honest case? Oh yes. And my favorite mischaracterization of creationist arguments as "straw man" because they're arguing against a version that isn't mainstream. I almost left that out. Anything goes, right? No matter how stinking lame!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
I said creationists are continually misportrayed. As it looks like behavior patterns are holding, I'll probably be called a liar. So here's just one easy example. The origin of the term is known, and readily available.
http://EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact? -->EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact?post # 32 from jar includes a quote box with just the term "macroevolution" and responds There is no such theory except in the minds of the Biblical Creationists. Is that so?Macroevolution - Wikipedia Not that it'll keep 'em from calling me a liar. Not much is going to slow that down while there's an internet between us. But it'll be educational to see what happens. Edited by CTD, : Correction of post number
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good work. You seem to think I've misunderstood something somewhere, but I agree with your assessment of the present-day evolutionist definition. I note that it differs from past evolutionist definition(s) considerably. Perhaps some don't consider it noteworthy that a formerly specific term has had its meaning broadened to include all fossils (and I dare presume all lifeforms). Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right? But even these days, not all evolutionists have given up hope and adopted the new definition. Some still continue to search for transitional forms which would meet the standards of the past. I think it's a mischaracterization of the situation to claim only creationists continue to care about the 'obsolete' version of the term. Sure, I should bother with this crap. I've seen all the phoney 'justifications' I can stomach just now for redefining terms, and the denials are based on... "Nothing of substance" is the most polite phrasing that comes to mind. I did think of one more thing evolution 'theories', big bang 'theories', and abiogenesis 'theories' all have in common: they're all continually being revised. What's yesterday's 'fact' is today's rubbish in all three cases. The prepackaged response is always "That's how science works. You just must not know the first thing about science." Well, in any other field of science (i.e. legit science) when a theory or hypothesis is tenuously maintained, they don't go around propagandizing it as 'fact'. They don't question the sanity of persons who question it and search for alternatives. The only other thing defended in this manner is Einsteinian Relativity, and that's primarily due to its links to the big bang. But outside of that, can anyone name a branch of science (or pseudoscience) which behaves in this manner? I doubt it very much. So, we can dismiss the "that's how science works, fool" nonsense, and do so easily. What's left? Denial. It should be good for several chuckles. Remember, these people claim to know more than most folks about evolution. But they'll gladly deny the changes we all know have taken place. They think it helps them "win" the argument. I can hardly wait to be told I "made it all up in my own head". Now if there are fresh young visitors, here's how you can go about looking this up. Use an "advanced search" and look for stuff like 'will need to be revised' or 'may soon be revised' or 'scientists are rethinking' along with any of these three fairy tales. Should get tons of results. Missed this. Oh well, what I said pretty much applies. I'm not really hot to discuss the obvious. I used RAZD's link & checked out Darwin on lots of stuff. The place is more complete than my old Darwin bookmark, and has a lot of his later works of fiction along with those of some of his buddies. In 'Origin of Species' Darwin uses the term just like one would expect. As time goes by, he and the others begin to abuse the term considerably. Now I know where, when, and how it started. It's no surprise that his children have carried on with the practice. It's ironic that you guys want to render the term meaningless. What if one turns up years hence, after you've sold everyone on the new definition? But you're not concerned about that. The term could just be altered again, right? Or maybe you've given up hope? A better question might be: What are all the diggers looking for? More specimens of the same species? New species? Transitional forms? And would anyone care to name the creationist who coined the term "missing link"? Please don't give credit to me on this one. I must humbly deny even the most indirect hint of a contribution in this case. It all serves to highlight what I was just saying about the multitude of changes the story has undergone. The story changes. The textbooks don't. When creationists argue against the story, if they argue against the version in textbooks (and they must tackle all versions), they use yesterday's language (invariably invented by evolutionists). They're portrayed as either "behind the times" or "liars making up terms 'science' doesn't even use". Why? Why, why, why can't you folks make an honest case? Or would you prefer: Why don't you make an honest case? Oh yes. And my favorite mischaracterization of creationist arguments as "straw man" because they're arguing against a version that isn't mainstream. I almost left that out. Anything goes, right? No matter how stinking lame! Now, of course, if you were telling the truth about this supposed original definition of "transitional form", and prove it. But since this is something you made up, you have to substitute this whining, posturing, lying, and name-calling. I notice that you have given no particular examples of the aspersions cast, possibly because this too is stuff you've made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
and Vacate perpetuates the myth in post #37 of the same thread
Macroevolution is simply an unprovable assertion made by non-scientists. This is also a fact. As Jar stated - there is no such theory. Note the highly dubious application of the term 'fact' also. Okay, okay. I'll go find something more challenging to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Forum: Origin of Life Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution Subtitle: Just one example I said creationists are continually misportrayed. As it looks like behavior patterns are holding, I'll probably be called a liar. So here's just one easy example. The origin of the term is known, and readily available.EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact? post # 69 from jar includes a quote box with just the term "macroevolution" and responds There is no such theory except in the minds of the Biblical Creationists. Is that so?Macroevolution - Wikipedia Not that it'll keep 'em from calling me a liar. Not much is going to slow that down while there's an internet between us. But it'll be educational to see what happens. We can all see that you're not telling the truth. In post #31 (not #69, as you claim) jar does indeed reply "There is no such theory except in the minds of the Biblical Creationists". However, he is not doing so in answer to a quote box containing just the term "macroevolution", as you falsely claim, but to a quote box containing the phrase "Theory of macroevolution". And I don't see why you bothered to pretend otherwise --- we can all see what he wrote. And he says that there is no such theory. He does not, of courrse, say that there is no such thing, but that there is no special "theory of macroevolution", as we can see by the fact that while wikipedia has an article on "Macroevolution" (a term invented by scientists) it has no article on this imaginary "Theory of Macroevolution" (a term invented by creationists). Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Now, of course, if you were telling the truth about this supposed original definition of "transitional form", and prove it. But since this is something you made up, you have to substitute this whining, posturing, lying, and name-calling. I notice that you have given no particular examples of the aspersions cast, possibly because this too is stuff you've made up. Take RAZD's link and go to 'Origin of Species'. You'll find in the chapter on 'problems with the theory' that Darwin acknowledges the lack of transitional forms. Does he not say it is a serious problem? With me so far? Now follow closely: If ALL forms are transitional, as you folks keep insisting; how could there ever have been any LACK of them? Hope I didn't lose you. And good luck convincing anyone I made this up in my head. Now this time I mean it - I'll go find something challenging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... and Vacate perpetuates the myth in post #37 of the same thread... ... at which point evolutionists pointed out that he was wrong, so that in post #47 he said:
Vacate writes: I stand corrected as a very poor choice of words. I was not clear on what is "fact", "theory", and "assertions". I should have said the Theory of Macroevolution is an assertion made by non-scientists. What I understand to be true in the science field is there is only the Theory of Evolution, and macro and micro are observations that the theory attempts to explain. My post was certainly not trying to be untruthful. We can all read the thread, what do you hope to achieve by this sort of misrepresentation?
Okay, okay. I'll go find something more challenging to do. If you want a challenge, try talking for five minutes without distortion, dishonesty and blatant falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
and Vacate perpetuates the myth in post #37 of the same thread Nice work, the ghost of poor wording rises up to bite my nose. Did you read further in the thead where I was corrected and then posted my withdawl of the claim and revised my statement? Here it is for you, no need to go looking for it:
vacate writes: I stand corrected as a very poor choice of words. I was not clear on what is "fact", "theory", and "assertions". I should have said the Theory of Macroevolution is an assertion made by non-scientists. Message 47 I will stand by this if you have any further questions. I also stand by my use of the word fact, just in case you are wondering.
Okay, okay. I'll go find something more challenging to do. Like reading further before attempting a smear campaign? Just a suggestion. Carry on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024