Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 304 (393295)
04-04-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Some things we can know...
We may not know if God poofed life into existance 3 and a half billion years ago or if it arose through chemisty (though we have hints that it could have) but we do know that he didn't make any full grown modern animals. So this is simply wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 304 (393299)
04-04-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Re-ToE
Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all.
quote:
It does if life did not evolve from nothing.
No, you are completely wrong.
Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from?
Do you disbelieve the Atomic Theory of Matter because it doesn't explain where the first atom came from?
Do you disbelieve the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System because it doesn't explain how stars are formed?
ICANT, you don't know nearly enough about science to make an informed opinion.
Therefore, you are making error upon error about very basic scientific things. You have an opinion, but it is based upon nothing but your religious prejudice and ignorance.
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
quote:
It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes.
If you believe that this happened, then you don't accept modern science.
You reject Biology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Cosmology, Genetics, etc.
Your links concerning "formas" didn't work.
The bit of a quote you provided mentions "forams", which are single-celled organisms. Their fossils are used to date geological layers.
But anyway, this is just another empty argument about supposed barriers to evolution that people like you claim exist but never show.
I noticed that you ignored my request for a definition of "kind".
What is the definition of "kind", ICANT? What is it?
I've asked that question to dozens of Creationists over the years, and not a single one of them have given me an answer.
Maybe you will be the first, but I don't think so.
Furthermore, when I asked you to explain the method used to determine what "kind" an organism is...:
For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"?
Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?
You inadequately answered:
quote:
Yes
No
How did you come to that conclusion? What method did you use?
Clearly, you reject the notion that genes are the basis for heredity.
Again, more evidence that you reject modern science.
quote:
I plead guilty to ignorance of science.
If I wanted to remain that way I would not put up with the snide posts, uncalled for sarcasm, and downright bigotry on this forum.
[rant]If you agree that you are ignorant of science, then where do you get off making such bold claims about it?
For the last 150 years, there have been hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of life on this planet. There's a reason not every Joe Schmoe can get a PhD in the sciences, ICANT. That's because it's bloody difficult. It takes enormous commitment and not a small amount of intelligence to make it through the years and years of work required. Scientists are low-paid relative to other professionals with similar levels of education and expertise like MD's, MBA's and attorneys, so none of them do it for the big bucks but because they like what they do.
Can't you imagine how you might come off as insulting when, even while admitting ignorance about science, you express incredulity about how anybody (which includes scientists in the field) could possibly believe the Theory of Evolution?
Don't cry to me about sarcasm and snide remarks regarding your entirely willful ignorance if you are also going to criticise others who are far more informed than you are. THAT, my friend, is real arrogance.[/rant]
If you are ignorant of science, then why haven't you been asking questions so you can become less ignorant? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to try to learn what you don't know rather than defend your ignorance? There are professional scientists and educated laypeople on this board who could help you to correct your misconceptions and errors and lack of information regarding any number of scientific subjects. Just ask, and many of us would be happy to explain anything you have questions about.
But I predict that you won't. It's too dangerous for your faith, apparently, for you to become too educated about science.
You have to realize, ICANT, that we've seen many people just like you come and go from these boards. They have the same wrong ideas about science and evolution, and come with the same arrogant attitude of, "Gee, I don't know anything about Biology, and I don't believe in the ToE, and anybody who does believe in it must be pretty crazy!" We've even seen some who come here with lots of honest questions about science becasue they realize thay are ignorant and want to fix that. Most of the time, they get almost to the point of understanding but then run away right when they would have to admit that the ToE is valid.
It is truly a trajedy when people must suppress their intellects and avoid learning about the natural world to protect their clearly fragile faith.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-10-2007 3:03 AM nator has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 304 (393302)
04-04-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Re: (lovely) Re-ToE (Me-ToE Made?)
nator writes:
The various therories of Abiogenesis
nator writes:
Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry
I don't have a problem with either of them, you do.
The problem is mutual: we don't know.
RAZD writes:
Before the point where life originates the answer currently is "we don't know" -- that is not faith, it is uncertainty, scientific uncertainty.
Since these sciences can only tell you they don't know you call it scientific uncertainty.
Can I have the same privilege because I can't show you God and just call it religious uncertainty.
Actually I would still call that scientific uncertainty: we don't know the facts of what happened, nor do we know the process. Until that happens the possibility of special creation and random process are in the same boat: we don't know. I call that scientific uncertainty because science looks to evidence and facts for the answers, and when those can not be determined science is necessarily uncertain.
Religious uncertainty I would call agnostic or a questioning of faith, as religion is not based on evidence and facts but on faith ("belief that is not based on proof").
Science is not limited to telling us what we don't know, as there is plenty of evidence for the things we do know:
I will quote RAZD on this one:
RAZD writes:
There is about a billion years from the formation of the earth and the first evidence of life noted above. Where did it come from is a question we don't know - and likely can't know - the answer to due to the problem of destruction of the evidence. What caused it is also anyone's guess at this point - we don't have any evidence of how if formed so it is not possible to define the causes (with evidence). (Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from? (Message 106)
(Added link to message)
The age of the earth is a fact. We can find evidence that consistently points towards it being at least 4.5 billion years old, whether it is 4.55 or 4.6 billion years old is still uncertain, but we can use >4.5 billion years old as factual.
The age of life on earth is a fact. We can find evidence that consistently points towards it being at least 3.5 billion years old, whether it is 3.55 or 3.6 billion years old is still uncertain, but we can use >3.5 billion years old as factual.
Likewise evolution is a fact: it has been observed in the genetic flux within populations over time, and it has been observed in actual speciation events observed under controlled conditions (ie scientifically validated).
Chiroptera writes:
This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America.
But they did exist.
And the cyano-bacteria did exist 3.5 billion years ago. Since then the fossil evidence shows an accumulation over time of increased diversity. So we can study what we do know about Chiroptera's ancestors with the same validity that we can study what we do know about the fossil past: we can draw the same kinds of family relationships and test them for validity. This is all - really - that evolution at the "macro" scale is doing, testing the concept of common ancestor to see where the evidence leads.
nator writes:
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes.
No because those "full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes" would still have been the foundation for evolution to proceed after creation. It would still be just as valid from that point on as it is to look at it as occurring from cyano-bacteria 3.5 billion years ago.
The debate in not over evolution, but common ancestry -- how far back that goes and to which common ancestors.
Evolutionist take what you hope these sciences will prove at a future date on faith, what if they fail to ever give the answer and many have said they never will.
Scientifically inclined people follow the evidence to see where it leads. Science is not about answering questions of religious faith (the purpose of life etc) but about answering questions that can be tested and validated based on evidence. Science is happy with uncertainty: it's a challenge and an opportunity, it is where the growth in knowledge occurs as we whittle away at the uncertainty.
If I wanted to remain that way I would not put up with the snide posts, uncalled for sarcasm, and downright bigotry on this forum.
I truly appreciate RAZD he has been helpful and pointed out many things in a civil way.
Thanks, but I've been called snide, sarcastic, bigoted and worse. I've been suspended for it too. I try to remain civil as best I can, but I also have low tolerance for outright willful clinging to ignorance and delusions, especially when there is evidence to evaluate.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : age of life a fact

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

StevieBoy
Junior Member (Idle past 6196 days)
Posts: 13
From: All over the place
Joined: 03-30-2007


Message 19 of 304 (393307)
04-04-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
04-03-2007 11:33 AM


Re: Re-ToE
ICANT writes:
Sorry I don't buy into that theory.
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
On the same token if so many people through scientific reasoning and generations of like minded thought have searched and searched for over 2000 years and come up with the best theories they possibly can, to explain in real terms how we came to be where we are today, then maybe, perhaps, there is some truth to be gleaned from these widely believed theories.
I can say one thing and that is so many people have trouble finding God in the first place and many more people loose sight of God at various points in their life that we can never think we know God fully and when finding ourselves in a position of disbelief, spend a little more time listening to what God is trying to tell us and we may be further enlightened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 04-04-2007 10:31 AM StevieBoy has not replied
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2007 10:38 AM StevieBoy has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 304 (393308)
04-04-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Re: Re-ToE
quote:
Chiroptera writes:
This is stupid. I have no idea how my ancestors arrived in North America.
But they did exist.
Not according to creationists. According to creationists, since I wasn't there to witness the journey, and since there are still unanswered puzzles, then it is a reasonable assumption that I was specially created at my birth.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 304 (393310)
04-04-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by StevieBoy
04-04-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Re-ToE
I know I am not good as staying on topic but I am motivated to keep this one from straying.
StevieBoy, thanks for your reply, but it doesn't address the OP.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the OP, so please give it a read and let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by StevieBoy, posted 04-04-2007 10:23 AM StevieBoy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 304 (393311)
04-04-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by StevieBoy
04-04-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Re-ToE
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
So.
When are you going to become a Deist?
{Added by Edit - thanks shraf}: this is off-topic, but we can discuss it elsewhere. Perhaps on Perceptions of Reality?
Here we are discussing the validity of biological evolution versus it being a mode of belief.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : abe

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by StevieBoy, posted 04-04-2007 10:23 AM StevieBoy has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 304 (393419)
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


Re-Questions
NosyNed writes:
but we do know that he didn't make any full grown modern animals. So this is simply wrong.
Who said anything about modern animals, birds, fish, or man?
nator writes:
If you are ignorant of science, then why haven't you been asking questions so you can become less ignorant?
You want questions I got plenty.
1. Where did the infinitely small nothing than the universe came out of come from and why? "We don't know"
2. Where did life come from and why? "We don"t know"
I will take Razd's answer to these 2.
3. Did we have sharks 400 million years ago?
4. Did we have fish 72 feet long 150 million years ago?
5. Did we have an extinction event about 65 million years ago?
6. If so how much of life forms were left?
7. Is this where dinosaurs disappeared.?
8. How did all the elements that created our fossil fuels get together in the places they are in?
9. When did all these elements get together?
10. Back to life forms what were they after the extinction event?
11. When did the first hominids appear?
12. Did we have about 60 millions years to evolve from life forms left from extinction event?
13. If so how can that happen?
14. If a foraminiferan species made no changes in 500,000 years how fast did we speciate?
15. If in 66 million years the best foraminiferan could do was create 330 species, at that rate how could man appear from whatever it was left after the extinction event until we find modern man?
16. If we use the 500,000 years to get speciation then we would have 132 speciations, Is that correct?
17. If we use the fastest the foraminiferan ever speciated 200,000 years then we would have 330 speciation events, am I correct?
18. Would somebody explain how man could have evolved from whatever it was after the extinction event into modern man in only 66 million years? 330 speciations
19. How can I be expected to believe that this happened? Especially since the foraminiferan are still foraminiferan after 66 million years, and the sharks are still sharks after 400 million years.
RAZD writes:
The debate in not over evolution, but common ancestry
nator writes:
In another thread, ICANT wrote the following:
quote:
I do not see how anyone can believe in the Theory of evolution.
I thought this thread was caused by the above statement I made.
20. If God ploofed all down fully grown how could there be common ancestry?
That's a start but I got a lot more questions?

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-05-2007 1:43 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 04-05-2007 3:28 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 26 by DrJones*, posted 04-05-2007 4:05 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 28 by nator, posted 04-05-2007 8:46 AM ICANT has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 24 of 304 (393421)
04-05-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


Gishian Gallop, or something like that
Would you care to take one or perhaps a few related of your 20 questions and make a new topic? There must be a priority question in there somewhere.
What you have in your message 23 is a vague unworkable mess.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 1:18 AM ICANT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 304 (393425)
04-05-2007 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


animals who poofed
Who said anything about modern animals, birds, fish, or man?
Playing nit picky games are we. Ok he didn't poof ANY birds, fish or man into existance in the beginning. They are all (compared to the first life) "modern" in the sense of being recent in the last 10% of the existance of life on earth. Your statement is simply wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 1:18 AM ICANT has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 26 of 304 (393426)
04-05-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


Re: Re-Questions
1. Where did the infinitely small nothing than the universe came out of come from and why? "We don't know"
2. Where did life come from and why? "We don"t know"
1. not a question that the ToE will give you an answer too, go talk to the physics people. Leave "why" to the philosophers
2. not a question that the ToE will give you an answer too, go talk to the chemistry people. Leave "why" to the philosophers.
8. How did all the elements that created our fossil fuels get together in the places they are in?
8. not a question that the ToE will give you an answer too, go talk to the geology people.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 1:18 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 10:11 AM DrJones* has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 304 (393437)
04-05-2007 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
04-04-2007 12:05 AM


Natural History
Since these sciences can only tell you they don't know you call it scientific uncertainty.
Can I have the same privilege because I can't show you God and just call it religious uncertainty.
You have the same privelage. IT would make you agnostic or perhaps a deist.
It does if life did not evolve from nothing.
No concept or idea on the origin of life includes it evolving from nothing. Even if it did - that would not be the kind of evolution discussed in the theory of biological evolution. 'Nothing' is not a biological concept.
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
It would if God made a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, birds and fishes.
No - it would change our conception of natural history but it would not change the mechanisms we have discovered that lead to the change in populations over time. Those mechanisms are called the theory of evolution. So ToE would not change, natural history would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 12:05 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 304 (393448)
04-05-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
04-05-2007 1:18 AM


Re: Re-Questions
Are you going to define "kind", or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 1:18 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Parasomnium, posted 04-05-2007 8:50 AM nator has not replied
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2007 10:05 AM nator has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 29 of 304 (393450)
04-05-2007 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
04-05-2007 8:46 AM


Nomen est omen
Are you going to define "kind", or not?
Just signing his name would be enough of an answer, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 04-05-2007 8:46 AM nator has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 30 of 304 (393461)
04-05-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
04-05-2007 8:46 AM


Re: Re-Questions
Are you going to define "kind", or not?
You already told me I was not qualified to define kind or anything else that would be involved in science.
You said if I wanted to learn ask questions.
I did ask a few.
All of these questions pretain to why I don't see how anyone can believe in the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 04-05-2007 8:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-05-2007 10:41 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 34 by nator, posted 04-06-2007 9:04 AM ICANT 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