Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 300 (419952)
09-05-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
Vash, even the last two Popes have accepted the scientific model of evolution.
Are you saying that the Pope believes in a "sick, retarded God"?
The truth of the matter is that there is abundant, confirmatory evidence of common descent, and that the debate is over. It's over and done with! It was over in the 1800's. The only people who hang on to the failed ideas of creationism are the people who are too ignorant to know better or who have been brainwashed by religion.
The scientific debate on the issue has been over for two centuries. Creationists are simply stuck in 1799.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:58 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 300 (420165)
09-06-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ihategod
09-06-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Eye of the tiger
You have the faith of the rock you think you came from.
I have no faith at all. I've seen the evidence, though, with my own two eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 1:11 PM Ihategod has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 300 (422209)
09-16-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:18 PM


I'd much rather know how things work than how some 'scientist' thinks they might work.
So what do you think scientists do all day?
The scientific method exists so that not every single human being has to discover everything for themselves. It's an auditable, verifiable means to accurate knowledge that can then be shared and trusted by people who weren't there for the actual experiment.
You could be a scientist, of course, but even then you'd never have enough time in your life to do it all yourself; the scope of scientific knowledge doubles every 4-5 years. If you devoted your entire life to replicating scientific experiments because you had to see it with your own eyes to believe it, I doubt you could get past Newtonian physics and VESPR electrochemisty. You'd have died of old age long, long before you even approached high-energy physics or molecular biology.
If a scientist claims a thing is so, and it turns out it isn't...
How would we know? We'd try to replicate his results.
The scientific consensus consists of the results that have been replicated and verified. That's why it's essentially trustworthy. As trustworthy as any other human endeavor. At any one time, the scientific consensus may hold inaccurate views on something, but over time, these inaccuracies inevitably come to light.
The most recent act of scientific fraud - that guy in Korea with the human cloning - was discovered within weeks of publishing his results. The process is self-correcting.
I know history has never been regarded highly among evolutionists. After all, it's the very thing you all're trying to replace, right?
What? The history and diversity of life on Earth - the true history, not the imaginary one of religious belief - is what evolutionary models study and explain, through fossil and genetic evidence.
No replacement of history here. Just a search for what is true about the past.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:18 PM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 300 (422215)
09-16-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by CTD
09-16-2007 12:52 PM


These had been implemented in order to give evolutionism more credibility (and so others could get in on the bandwagon & get funding & stuff)
"Get funding and stuff"?
The scientific acceptance of evolution - which had happened by the end of the 19th century - largely predates significant public funding of pure research (that is, activities not related to developing wartime weapons.) Acceptance of evolution had nothing to do with "getting funding and stuff"* and everything to do with the fact that it's supported by a vast weight of evidence.
*If you had ever worked in a scientific field, you'd understand that "getting funding and stuff" isn't really that great. Getting a research grant from the government isn't getting a big check with a bunch of zeros that you can spend on whatever you like.
The paperwork is extreme, and your expenses have to be justified to the project. Moreover, you can't pay yourself out of your research funds, even if you can pay your subordinate workers; so there's almost no avaricious intent possible when scientists seek funding for research. Gas chromatographs and PCR machines are not so fun to use that people buy them just because they can.
The idea that scientists do "junk science" to attrack research money is a hilarious misunderstanding of how money is used in the sciences. Dishonest scientists who want to get rich quick shill for industries. (See global warming "skeptics.") Because industries don't care what you spend their huge consulting checks on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CTD, posted 09-16-2007 12:52 PM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 300 (422504)
09-17-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was.
He actually was a trained naturalist, and the title of his book is not deceptive.
It's called "On the Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life." The book certainly explains everything it claims to - new species arise from old species via the means of natural selection and random mutation.
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law.
No, it didn't. That's why we still call it the "germ theory of disease."
The hierarchy of theory you describe is a myth. It never existed in the sciences.
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny.
It still means that, in the sciences; among laypeople and creationists, of course, it means "wild-ass guess." The reason that scientists call it "the theory of evolution" is because it has withstood scrutiny and testing, not in order to indicate that it hasn't.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves.
So, you're saying you'd punch me in the mouth if I offered you a "hamburger"? I mean, I know how much you hate it when words are co-opted with new meanings, right?
You couldn't possibly be using a computer, right now, unless you were talking about a person hired to do mathematics - right? And you wouldn't, under any circumstances, be caught dead using something called a "computer network", unless it was to catch fish, right?
Oh, well, not to worry. The things I just mentioned don't even exist, right? Because "Redefining terms is not how language evolves." Except, of course, when it is.
The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples.
He had abundant examples; and we continue to find countless more. Transitional forms - organisms that are intermediates between other species - are plentiful. The oft-mentioned "lack" of them is simply mythical.
There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Nonsense. I can name several. How about Ursavus elmensis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 4:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 300 (422638)
09-17-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


Re: And...
One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue. (For the record, I'm not old enough to have made up these differences.)
I think you've become confused. Nobody agreed with you that, historically, hypothesis became theory became law.
If evolution is not an accurate scientific theory, that will become obvious when the evidence against it is presented; not because of any philosophical concerns about the nature of knowledge or pissant moaning about the English language changing over a century.
If you have some of that evidence, by all means bring it forward. If all that you have is complaining that "scientific laws ain't what they used to be", then you really have nothing at all.
I see a few things I may get around to, but I don't plan to spend much more time on this thread.
If you're a time-expiring troll, why bother? The second we come close to convincing you, or presenting too much evidence to ignore, you're gone. Why wait? Why don't you just take your parting shots now, and head out? The fact that you think evolution is impossible means nothing to me; I'm in there in the lab doing experiments that would be impossible if evolution were not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:15 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:42 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 10:11 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 300 (422724)
09-18-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by CTD
09-17-2007 9:42 PM


Re: And...
SO! Was it you?
No, it wasn't.
But doing 180s and trying to pretend you're still on the same course is the kind of thing that disqualifies one.
You do actually have to prove that happened before you can claim that it did, you know. If I have cause to reverse course 180 degrees, then I'll be the first to let you know.
But it will be because of evidence presented, not any personal attack you're able to muster. Do you have some? Evidence, I mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:42 PM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 300 (422726)
09-18-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by CTD
09-17-2007 10:11 PM


Re: And...
So what's the penalty, anyhow? What do they do to you guys if you slip up? Must be something awful if you're that paranoid.
Paranoid? No, I'm just trying to help you overcome your confusion and arrogance. You're failing to understand what people are saying to you, which makes it rather difficult for you to respond on-point.
No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. Did you have a response to my arguments, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 10:11 PM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 300 (423971)
09-25-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by CTD
09-25-2007 12:39 AM


Re: predictions do sometimes come true.
The prepackaged response is always "That's how science works. You just must not know the first thing about science."
I have to ask - why do you ignore the people that say that to you?
Why do you assume that your 7th-grade conception of science is going to be adequate out here in the real world, in terms of understanding real science?
Do you think it's just a toss-off line we throw around? No, it's a serious statement about the deplorable state of your familiarity with 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'.
But that's exactly what is done, in any field. Facts don't get righter just because they get older; conversely, new knowledge isn't intrinsically less reliable than old knowledge.
The conclusions of science stand or fall based on evidence, not based on age. Evolution is one such theory that has stood on the evidence, and continues to withstand all challenge. Because it's supported by the evidence. And where evidence suggested incompleteness in the theory, the theory was extended or modified.
Because that's what reasonable people do in response to new evidence, CTD. They reexamine their conclusions and modify them as needed. You think that the revision of theory constitutes the weakness of science, but that is actually its strength. That's how we know that the conclusions of science can be trusted, that they represent the best of our knowledge at any given time.
We don't know everything about cancer, for instance. Five years ago the idea that a virus can cause cancer was risible to most oncologists. Now we know that it's indisputable fact that some cancers are viral in origin. The proper response to this change in our knowledge isn't to tear down hospitals, as you would have us do; it's to build more schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 12:39 AM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 189 of 300 (424441)
09-26-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Force
09-26-2007 9:46 PM


Re: excitment
Abiogenesis: A biological genesis. "The origin of life according to biology."
What? No. Look, it's from the greek:
A- the greek prefix that means "not", "without", "the opposite of."
bios meaning "life".
genesis "beginning", "creation", "formation", etc.
"Abiogenesis" simply means "life from lifelessness." The initial formation of life from lifeless products by some means. Technically it could be God, or aliens, or any number of things. Scientifically we try to answer that question with things we can actually test and observe so we try to steer away from God-based explanations, not least of which because there's no such thing as God.
I am glad that you're confident in the belief of Abiogenesis.
It's not a belief, it's an observation. We know that the Earth was without life at one point, like Jar just told you and you agreed; then it was life-bearing.
How it went from one to the other is abiogenesis. It's just a word that means "life from lifelessness."
The problem is that in Science there is no FACT.
What? No, there are facts in science. I don't know who told you otherwise. Facts are what theories exist to explain. Facts are what theories, in a way, are made out of.
Even if we were 99.9999999999999999/100 sure that Abiogenesis occured we would still not have fact.
Look around you. Does life exist? Yes. Did it always exist? No.
Obviously, abiogenesis occurred. Biochemists are hard at work trying to figure out how. Try not to belittle their effort by acting like a punk about it, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Force, posted 09-26-2007 9:46 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Force, posted 09-27-2007 1:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 215 of 300 (425021)
09-30-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by CTD
09-30-2007 1:26 AM


Re: A word of caution
Now read through this thread, and decide for yourself if anyone else would apply the term to them.
Simple question, CTD. Why would anybody else get to decide? Who, in your mind, is the accrediting body for claims of being Christian? (The Earthly body, anyway.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 1:26 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:12 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 300 (425035)
09-30-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by CTD
09-30-2007 3:12 AM


Re: Simple answer
You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to throw words around as if they had absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
No, I just think that there's no merit in second-guessing someone's stated religious affiliation.
You're not talking about the definition of words. You're talking about membership in a group - Christianity. A "Christian" is anyone who is part of the religion of Christianity.
Who are you, exactly, to speak for Christianity and decide who is "in" and who is "out"? And if not you, then who in your mind is making that decision here on Earth, and on what authority do they do that?
However, it is not common practice to broaden the term to include every last person on the planet!
I wouldn't expect the term to include people who are adamant that they are not Christians, and I don't see where anybody has proposed such an extension of the term.
But the term certainly does include everyone who honestly claims to be a Christian, otherwise we're put in the ridiculous position of having to "qualify" people as Christian or not, and that's a mug's game. Who on Earth could you possibly be that you could make that decision for someone else?
I maintain that nobody with any familiarity with the term could,after reading those posts, honestly apply it to the authors thereof.
Except that they apply it to themselves. And they'd know, it seems to me. So on what basis do you claim to second-guess them? What authority do you have that is greater than theirs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 3:12 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 300 (425148)
09-30-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
09-30-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Simple answer
Your own definition would indicate that we must determine whether or not a claim is 'honest', and in these circumstances I don't think you want to go there.
No, that's your definition, where a person has to meet some unspecified series of accrediting guidelines before they can claim the mantle of "Christian", or be open to charges (apparently) of "practicing Christianity without a license."
I'm just saying, when someone says "I'm a Christian", I don't know how I would contradict them, except if it was obvious that they weren't seriously making that claim - like they were obviously kidding because they were saying it in a funny voice, or I knew they thought Christianity was all a load of hokum, but we were trying to get into the free pancake breakfast or something.
Obviously, not everybody who says the words "I'm a Christian" intends to be taken seriously, and it's not hard to tell the difference. I'm not second-guessing them since they're not actually intending to make a claim of being Christian. But the people who are making that claim seriously, like the people you've been referring to in your posts - from what basis do you second-guess them? What body, in your view, acts as the Christian version of the Bar Association and decides who is really a Christian and who is just practicing the religion without a license?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 09-30-2007 6:42 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 12:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 300 (425371)
10-01-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Does it, or does it merely place the mind into another [constricted] world view?
It is limited to that which can be demonstrated to be true, but I hardly find that "constricted." Indeed, the alternative of never being able to distinguish fact from fiction would appear to be paralyzing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 11:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024