Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 300 (423743)
09-24-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by CTD
09-24-2007 4:08 AM


Now when we take a word and attempt to substitute a new meaning for an old, it leads to confusion.
Hence the longstanding creationist attempt to pervert the language of science.
But in the cases involving evospeak, the new meaning of the term is always used as a direct replacement. Terms are used in exactly the same context as they were before, but new meanings are assigned. I cannot say that's an improvement in the language, or even an honest practice.
Of course, since this is rubbish that you made up in your head, you have been able to give no proof of any such practise.
Now as long as I'm here, I might as well point out that 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are terms a good number of evolutionists dislike (intensely). Why? Since I've seen no valid reason, I think it might be because they are more specific and clear than just plain 'evolution'. And clarity is something they're not very comfortable with.
Your daydreams shed an interesting light on your mental state, but none on the subject under discussion.
There are exceptions - just look at how many of them continue to use these terms.
Ah, you have noticed that your fantasy does not in any way fit the facts. But I see that you're manfully ignoring this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 4:08 AM CTD has not replied

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


Message 152 of 300 (423745)
09-24-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by CTD
09-24-2007 4:29 AM


There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage.
Creationists don't get to declare that their novelties of language are "valid English usage". Certainly, in scientific parlance, there is no such thing as "the theory of macroevolution", this is just some bollocks that creationists made up.
Taking a term coined by evolutionists, and pretending it is something creationists made up?
But we all know that you're lying about this, and that no-one has done so.
We all know that you're lying.
Hello?
You have been caught. We can all see the lie. We all know what actually happened. We can all read the thread you referred to.
Why do you bother?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 4:29 AM CTD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 300 (423768)
09-24-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by CTD
09-24-2007 4:29 AM


I don't see how. There is no Theory of Macroevolution so anyone who claims that there is would be wrong. Macroevolution is an observation not a theory.
There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage. One could quibble over capitalization, as this would imply that it's a proper title. (And one could go beyond quibbling over if it be valid to call such things 'theories'.)
You mean instances where the theory of evolution is used to explain how the observations of macroevolution occurred? Explanations that only use the theory of evolution - that changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is sufficient to explain all the diversity of life we know on earth and in the fossil record?
The ones that don't invoke sudden major changes unexplained by genetics and heredity?
The ones where there is no difference to explanations that show microevolutionary trends in populations?
That qualifies as a new theory to be called "The Theory of Macroevolution" when it applies to all the microevolutionary steps involved in the process?
Enjoy.

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 148 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 4:29 AM CTD has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 154 of 300 (423769)
09-24-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by CTD
09-24-2007 3:15 AM


predictions do sometimes come true.
CTD writes:
Not unless one counts anticipating, predicting, and posting a response in advance. I thought I did well, but maybe I'm biased.
If this is what you are referring to:
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.
as you seem to indicate when you posted:
CTD writes:
I think anyone can figure out I meant message #32 (of 69).
it was not so much a prediction as an acknowledgment of fact. The only part of your prior quote that might be considered a lie was when you said you "creationists are continually misportrayed[sic]".
Would you care to name any 'field of science' other than the ones I mentioned which behaves in the manner I described? Or better still, would you contend that these fields do not behave in this manner?
Of course I contend that NO field of science behaves in the manner you describe.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 3:15 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 12:39 AM jar has replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 155 of 300 (423885)
09-24-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
09-24-2007 2:11 AM


quote:
I expect I've met my share of creationists. I know I've read more than my fair share of the literature. But I've seen no cube earth claims. Not a single one.
I see I was not clear enough.
CTD - this ridiculous cube-earth claim is the logical conclusion of YOUR common creationst claim that all facts will one day be found false.
Thus, your argument - that all facts are one day found to be false - says that one day we will find the Earth is NOT round, but something else - like a cube e.g.
Do you really believe that ALL facts will one day be found wrong?
Will we one day find out that water burns?
Will we one day find out that petrol is good for cooking?
No.
But that is the reduction to absurbity of your claim.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 2:11 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 10:20 PM Kapyong has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 156 of 300 (423950)
09-24-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Kapyong
09-24-2007 6:48 PM


I see I was not clear enough.
CTD - this ridiculous cube-earth claim is the logical conclusion of YOUR common creationst claim that all facts will one day be found false.
You've gone to some length arguing against something I never said or implied, now haven't you.
Much like your cube earth story, I doubt any creationist has said what you claim.
What's the point? Is this for the benefit of readers who don't pay any attention at all? Or are you hoping I'll try to repeat myself, and somehow blunder into saying something silly? I try to understand you people, but there are still mysteries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Kapyong, posted 09-24-2007 6:48 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 10:45 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 157 of 300 (423955)
09-24-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by CTD
09-24-2007 10:20 PM


* waits *
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 10:20 PM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 158 of 300 (423970)
09-25-2007 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
09-24-2007 9:38 AM


Re: predictions do sometimes come true.
If this is what you are referring to:
I'll play. Juuuuuust this once.
Messages 125 & 126
I said
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.
and you said
Of course, that simply shows how ignorant you are about science or even learning.
Anyone inclined to review can go back to the posts and read it in full.
I see no need to repeat myself again.
I mean, your buds are still trying to misportray what I said; and I don't think anyone's doing all that good a job fooling anyone. If I see any quality lies, I'll be happy to jump all over 'em. But this kind of junk just isn't worth the effort. I'd have to be pretty paranoid to fear anyone could be fooled if they tried, now wouldn't I?
Sure, they'd like to pretend "North American continent" and "continent of North America" are not perfectly interchangeable in the English language. But even foreigners won't fall for that.
And your demand that everyone accept your demarcation of what's fact and what's theory isn't likely to be well-received. It's mildly amusing to see you do the very thing you deny happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 9:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2007 12:50 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 160 by jar, posted 09-25-2007 4:06 AM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 160 of 300 (423999)
09-25-2007 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by CTD
09-25-2007 12:39 AM


Re: predictions do sometimes come true.
Actually, I said a little more in Message 126 than just that.
You said:
quote:
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.
and I replied:
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.
You also mistate reality when you claim "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'."
In no field of science do we claim that theory is fact and no one here has made that claim. One thing that might clue even you in is that we have the Theory of Evolution. Note the first word there. It is "Theory."
And your demand that everyone accept your demarcation of what's fact and what's theory isn't likely to be well-received.
Huh?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

CTD
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 161 of 300 (424094)
09-25-2007 2:57 PM


Hmmmm...
The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of the Big Bang 'theory'. Without it, the whole thing falls apart. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the principle.
And we don't see anything but hype about how solid the 'theory' is, and how much "evidence backs it up". What terms are used to describe anyone who suggests it could be incorrect?
Show me one example in the last 30 years where someone suggesting we should look for something different has not been insulted and ridiculed.
Is this "how science works"?

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 09-25-2007 3:14 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 4:13 PM CTD has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 162 of 300 (424098)
09-25-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by CTD
09-25-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Hmmmm...
Show me one example in the last 30 years where someone suggesting we should look for something different has not been insulted and ridiculed.
Well, the limit on the 30 year period is somewhat restricting. However, if you know of an alternative theory to the Copernican model that has been presented in the last 30 years, please start a thread on it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 2:57 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 163 of 300 (424102)
09-25-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by CTD
09-25-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Hmmmm...
The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of the Big Bang 'theory'. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support the principle.
Er ... all the evidence agrees with it. Feel free to come up with a counter-example.
Show me one example in the last 30 years where someone suggesting we should look for something different has not been insulted and ridiculed.
Show me thirty years during which creationists haven't insulted and ridiculed cosmologists, good luck with that.
Real scientists can cope with insult and ridicule, it's being right that sees 'em through it.
If your side can come up with an argument that is not worthy of insult and ridcule, let's see it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 2:57 PM CTD has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 164 of 300 (424127)
09-25-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by CTD
09-21-2007 11:28 PM


A Foundational Case of Peer Review and Theory Revision
CTD writes:
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.
This is a true story. [1]
When the storm passed, Harg saw the burning tree. He alone drew near, for the others were fearful plodders. Though the air was still raw from the late autumn rain, and his fingers and toes cold and sore, the fire brought him comfort. But soon the fire began to die, and Harg felt the cold creep back like a patient snake.
Suddenly, the tree, weakened by the fire, collapsed--some of the upper branches fell into the ashes, the fire erupted anew, and again Harg felt the good heat.
Ronk, Grawl and Bam, who had at first cowered well back, edged closer. They, too, felt the good heat. Excitedly, Harg told them how piling new things on fire would keep it alive--they could always have the good heat and light!
Ronk, Grawl and Bam chattered to each other in wonder at Harg's words. If they were true, Harg would gain great mojo and sex, some of which they could claim for themselves. Eventually, Ronk's eyes widened with wild surmise, and he began piling stones on the fire.
And the fire began to die.
Ronk, Grawl and Bam hooted derisively, giving Harg noogies and pulling his nose. Then they walked away.
Puzzled and dejected, Harg stood beside the embers, seeing again in his mind's eye the upper branches crashing down and renewing the fire. Where had he gone wrong?
He remembered the falling branches and considered the nonburning stones. His gaze flicked back and forth from the branches which had fallen away from the fire and the stones, and he thought, "One of these things is not like the other..."
[...a quaintly annoying melody whistled in his nose...a big bird sang...]
With growing excitement, Harg seized a branch and threw it in the embers. Soon, flames rose anew, and Harg collected more branches. Once the fire was roaring again, Harg seized a burning branch and turned, shouting in triumph, waving his torch and crashing it down again onto the fire in a great shower of sparks--
[..for the first time, the best parts of Also Sprach Zarathustra were heard in the world...]
--which ignited his greasy mammoth robe.
Thus it was that the Great Fire-Bringer Harg died that day.
But Ronk, Grawl and Bam had seen that not just any new thing would keep the fire alive, but only branches, and so the people kept heat and light forever.
Late in his life, Ronk would discover that not only branches and mammoth robes would burn but also any kind of wood and some kinds of poop. His work met with great resistance, however, because it was smelly. Thus, he is, perhaps unjustly, remembered now primarily as Stinky Ronk the Poop Smoke Maker.
[1] Tip o' the Hat to Archer for the notion of musical scores.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CTD, posted 09-21-2007 11:28 PM CTD has not replied

Force
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 300 (424175)
09-26-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buckets
08-31-2007 9:01 PM


thiestic evolution
Buckets,
I am currently reading a lot about Theistic Evolution not atheistic evolution. Here are some links:
1)
Theistic Evolution 1
2)
Theistic Evolution 2
NOTE: The link between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of Earth is still not complete. I have only recently looked into Abiogenesis and it seems that it is not supported(still being tested).
1)
Abiogenesis
You should look into RNA World Hypothesis(still being tested also) because it has more support than Abiogenesis.
1)
RNA World Hypothesis
ANOTHER NOTE: I support the Big Bang at this point, and possibly Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection(not the way the schools teach Evolution). Please keep in mind that both Charles Darwin's TOE and Georges Lemaitre's Big-Bang theory support the idea of some sort of original state. Original state meaning that a form of life already existed before any evolution took place.
ANOTHER NOTE: Both Charles Darwin and Georges Lemaitre were Christian.
Edited by trossthree, : NOTE 3
Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed loooong links
Edited by trossthree, : Format

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" Isa:40;8
Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buckets, posted 08-31-2007 9:01 PM Buckets has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2007 1:28 AM Force has replied
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 4:51 AM Force 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