Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 31 of 215 (651845)
02-10-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:34 PM


Re: Origins vs. Evolution
shaddow77 writes:
If some deity (as you say poofed life into existence), then it may well be that evolution is planned and not random
Well, quite apart from life certainly not being random, if it's planned it sure doesn't look like any planning we humans would understand.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:34 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 32 of 215 (651846)
02-10-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
02-10-2012 3:44 AM


Tangle writes:
Knowing an origin, doesn't, of course, affect anything about what happens next. If a baby is left on the church steps, with a note saying 'please look after my child,' we can expect it to grow even if we don't know how it got there.
Just out of interest, when science has an answer, what will your new reply be?
Knowing the orgin may change the explanation as to how what happened next. It may in fact be planned rather than random.
I will let you know when science supplies an answer. But I would not get my hopes up as to science finding an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 3:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 2:57 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 3:01 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 33 of 215 (651848)
02-10-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:49 PM


I will let you know when science supplies an answer. But I would not get my hopes up as to science finding an answer.
It's always best to rehearse - you don't want to be caught wrong footed. There's a lot happening in the microbiology labs now you know.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:49 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:34 PM Tangle has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 34 of 215 (651849)
02-10-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
02-10-2012 9:32 AM


NoNukes writes:
Frankly, our scientific speculation regarding the origins of life are less than theory, and perhaps less than hypothesis. But what we know about the origin of species is far more substantial, and given the direct contradiction of the origin of species with Genesis, guess what doesn't get taught in science class.
I suggest you reread your post. Are you stating that there is in fact an accepted Theory of the orgin of life. If not your post makes not sense.
The "logic" you attemp to elucidate in your post not quoted above is dependent on there being an accepted theory of the origin of life, otherwise it makes not sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 9:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 02-10-2012 3:06 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 5:26 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 215 (651850)
02-10-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:34 PM


Re: Origins vs. Evolution
If some deity (as you say poofed life into existence), then it may well be that evolution is planned and not random.
How could you tell? What is the evidence for evolution being planned?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:34 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:29 PM Coyote has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 36 of 215 (651851)
02-10-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:49 PM


I will let you know when science supplies an answer.
Given that you don't recognize or understand the answers that science has already supplied, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't count on you further developments. But thanks anyway.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:49 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:32 PM subbie has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 215 (651852)
02-10-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:59 PM


no support for the Grand Poofer.
We do know that there is evidence of natural causes.
We also know that no one has ever presented any evidence of any non-natural or supernatural causes.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:59 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by shadow71, posted 02-11-2012 9:13 AM jar has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 38 of 215 (651864)
02-10-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
02-10-2012 2:59 PM


Re: Origins vs. Evolution
Coyote writes:
How could you tell? What is the evidence for evolution being planned?
There are a whole lot of indications of planned in the closed thead about whether Darwin's theory should be modified or replaced. All of the Shapiro stuff and cells being sentient to a degree and the exchange of information et. al.
Thats a subject hopefully for another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2012 2:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2012 1:46 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 39 of 215 (651865)
02-10-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
02-10-2012 3:01 PM


subbie writes:
Given that you don't recognize or understand the answers that science has already supplied, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't count on you further developments. But thanks anyway.
That seems to be the consensus on this board, but if you will remember, When I discussed Shapiro's views on this board, he in an e-mail said I understood him pretty well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 3:01 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 4:48 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 5:14 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 40 of 215 (651867)
02-10-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
02-10-2012 2:57 PM


tangle writes:
It's always best to rehearse - you don't want to be caught wrong footed. There's a lot happening in the microbiology labs now you know.
I will wait until I see something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 2:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 6:02 PM shadow71 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 215 (651869)
02-10-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by shadow71
02-10-2012 4:32 PM


How wonderful for you. You claim that one person says you understand one concept pretty well. On the other hand, most everything I've seen you write here indicates you don't understand the first thing about how science works, or what the ToE says.
I'll stick to my original position.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:32 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by shadow71, posted 02-11-2012 9:16 AM subbie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 42 of 215 (651880)
02-10-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by shadow71
02-10-2012 4:32 PM


shadow71's understanding of science... not so much.
When I discussed Shapiro's views on this board, he in an e-mail said I understood him pretty well.
Let's put that claim into context. When we questioned you about some concepts expressed in Shapiro's views, in particular "purifying selection" you admitted that you had no clue what Shapiro was talking about. You were not even able to tell when Shapiro was talking about natural selection even while you were attempting to minimize the role of natural selection in relation to Shapiro's work.
Anyone who bothers to visit the threads you are talking about is going to find any number of examples of your complete cluelessness regarding biology and the scientific method. If it becomes necessary to do so, I'll provide the pointers myself.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 43 of 215 (651884)
02-10-2012 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:59 PM


You need to re-read for comprehension.
I said exactly what I meant. There is no theory on the origin of life, and no such theory is taught. At best we have working hypotheses and evidence suggesting that abiogenesis is a reasonable explanation.
Despite your wish to believe otherwise, we don't need to understand or accept abiogenesis to accept the theory of evolution.
My quoted statement addresses your wish to conflate the term theory with guessing. Somehow, no number of attempts to clarify the role of theory in science has made any dent in that osmium cranium of yours.
The conflict with own belief's arises not because we've established how life began, but because despite not nailing down the details regarding the ultimate origin of life, science is still incompatible with the idea that man was created directly from dirt. Man evolved from some common ancestor with chimpanzees.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:59 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 44 of 215 (651897)
02-10-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by shadow71
02-10-2012 4:34 PM


I will wait until I see something
And then you will, of course, simply deny it. After all, if you can just flatly deny 150 years of evidence and facts in several scientific disciplines that proves that complex life evolved from simpler life over millions of years, what chance does a new major discovery like abiogenesis in your own lifetime stand?
This is a difference between the rational and the irrational; the believer's mind set and the scientist's.
I can still remember years ago when I first heard the ID arguments, I got all excited that evolution theory was possibly wrong. I read everything I could get my hands on wondering whether it could be true. It took me a couple of weeks to work out it was complete and utter bullshit and I was really pissed off. Partly because of the dishonesty of the case but mostly because of the anti-climax.
You can see that sense of excitement with the speed of light problem and Higgs boson stuff at CERN. At least half the scientists want their theories to be proven wrong and the other half are trying desperately to prove them wrong too. Scientists are iconoclasts, they want to prove accepted wisdom wrong.
You, with your unalterable beliefs, are the exact opposite. No amount of evidence can possibly change your mind and you spend your life denying every new thing that comes along that might challenge those beliefs.
Why are you here if you don't want to learn?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 4:34 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by shadow71, posted 02-11-2012 9:24 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 51 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2012 9:43 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 45 of 215 (651944)
02-11-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:44 PM


Some people believe God created life, but not necessarily 6000 years ago.
So I would agree with your last Paragraph if you changed it to include that God may have created life at a time more than 6000 years ago, and we have no proof or factual basis to disprove that hypothesis.
Well, I'm still right, aren't I? A literalistic reading of the Bible is known to be false. Our admitted ignorance of the origin of life does not put all hypotheses on the same level, because although we don't know which ones are true, we can at least identify some of them as false.
Your own hypothesis about God creating life but not according to Biblical chronology is also not on the same level. Consider this: the proposition that things happen according to natural law and not by God doing magic is the best supported theory in science. Every experiment ever done, every observation ever made, supports this proposition. We should still consider a miraculous explanation as a bare possibility, but it is contrary to our scientific knowledge as it stands just as though someone proposed that the origin of life involved a violation of the law of conservation of energy. We can conceive of it, we can consider it, but everything we know suggests that that wasn't what actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:44 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 02-11-2012 9:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024