Banning religion?

[superstring01]

James, there's no empiracal evidence that every living being came from goo, the so called evidence is based on conjecture and
supposition.

That is most certainly correct. There just isn't any evidence that earth's life specifically came from "goo" or abiogenesis. But, just the same no evidence exists for some other form of impetus for earth's life. We can speculate scientifically, but that's the best we can ever do. Speciation through Evolution, however, is a known scientific theory that is accepted based on its overwhelming evidence and-- of course-- the lack of any evidence for any other explanation and the lack of any contradicting evidence.

All you can do is show me pictures placed in a specific order then say here is the proof.

Are you a "proof driven" individual? Just curious. Not mocking you. May I ask if you have an opinion at all on how life arrived here. Differentiating from saying "I believe this is true" and "I think this may be true" and "I know this to be true".

~String

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

James, there's no empiracal evidence that every living being came from goo, the so called evidence is based on conjecture and supposition.

It's hard to respond to this. You keep using the term "goo", but I don't know what that is. Please define "goo" for me.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

James R, Jan is referring to the "goo" from the primordial soup theory. Which is rather archaic and her contiuned use of this only theory as rebuttle against evolution is rather pedestrian or even borderline insane. Jan Ardena there is more than one theory. Read Up http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

 

[spidergoat]

Jan Ardena:
It's hard to respond to this. You keep using the term "goo", but I don't know what that is. Please define "goo" for me.

It's a derogatory Creationist term for our ancestors.

Jan,

How could we see the fossil record of the earliest life forms, which were low mounds or mats of single celled organisms, then notice that later life forms gradually became more complex, and not conclude that one must have come from the other. I suppose someone like you could always introduce magic in between them, but that would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

How could we see the fossil record of the earliest life forms, which were low mounds or mats of single celled organisms, then notice that later life forms gradually became more complex, and not conclude that one must have come from the other. I suppose someone like you could always introduce magic in between them, but that would be intellectually dishonest.

What is the process that determines an intermediate species?

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

It's called evolution. As such, most species are probably in some kind of transition.

 

[superstring01]

What is the process that determines an intermediate species?

All species are "intermediate" between something and another. You're merely looking at one Poloroid shot of a million tiny transitions that happen over millions of years.

If you see an Acanthostega fossil, then a Cynodont then an Australopithecus, those are "transitional" fossils. All fossils are transitional. They are show a marking point. The silly and quite intelligectually dishonest nonsense about "transitional" fossils is both proof that all those spouting that arguments are either full knowing liars or pathetically ignorant of the facts.

• What would a transitional fossil between a human and its apelike ancestor look like? We've got one: Australopithecus.
• What would a transitional fossil between fish and reptile look like? We've got one: Acanthostega.
• What would a transitional fossil between a reptile and mammal look like? We've got one: Cynodont.

Everything you've asked for exists, it's just that--like all delusional cheaters--you keep adjusting the goal posts to make it ever-more impossible to meet your demands, to the point where you're asking for every single interconnected fossil from all of time demonstrating the incremental transitions (totaling in the many millsion) along with HD video footage of the transitions and Dolby 5.0 Surround Sound of the environmental acoustics. It's like in Star Trek the Motion Picture where V'Ger is looking for its god and knows that the gods exist on Earth. Upon arriving on Earth it assumes that the humans are an infestation and begins a process to wipe them out to "absorb" the Earth and become one with its god (somewhere in the Earth). Frustrated that its many hundreds of years of searching are ending in disappointment when it discovers that humans are, in fact, its creators it opts for the typical theist approach: destroy any evidence and shift the goalposts pointing towards the obvious truth: NO god. Simply science. Nothing special. All the big business you've made about your existence being bigger than it is. Well it's all a lie. ZAP. Destroy the evidence or call it fake.

A telling bit of science fiction that mimics how Christians and Muslims work; how they've always worked.

That's you. That's theists today. Every major scientist in every major branch in every country on earth don't accept Evolution on vague evidence. There isn't a world conspiracy. This isn't some rare science that has a lot of assumptions where one or two lone scientists can topple the book of knowledge (as still happens). This is speciation by evolution, one of the most studied fields of science that has been vigorously explored and tested over and over again, with mountains of evidence and supporting other evidence fields all accepted by the most brilliant minds on earth . . . except those with no education and strong religious views with a thousands-year history of brainwashing and hiding the truth.

The standards that theists ask for are so ridiculous that it's now approaching comical.

These are the same people who believe that a magical god created Adam and Eve.
A pillar of fire and pillar of cloud.
Men walking on water.
A pedophile receiving god's holy word and memorizing the entire text of the Koran.

At what point in time does the silliness stop and people actually get an education in science. There's a reason why so many scientists are atheists. They don't start out that way. Most start out as theists. It's just that the rigorous process of getting an education tends to teach each student about the stupidity of religion and religious arguments.

~String

 

[James R]

What is the process that determines an intermediate species?

The same process that makes you intermediate between your mother and your son.

 

[Jan Ardena]

superstring01,

That is most certainly correct. There just isn't any evidence that earth's life specifically came from "goo" or abiogenesis. But, just the same no evidence exists for some other form of impetus for earth's life.

Good, so now we're down to who has the best explanation for the existing evidence.

We can speculate scientifically, but that's the best we can ever do. Speciation through Evolution, however, is a known scientific theory that is accepted based on its overwhelming evidence and-- of course-- the lack of any evidence for any other explanation and the lack of any contradicting evidence.

Don't forget to add that there is no observation of one kind of creature turning into another kind, hence it is only speculation.

Are you a "proof driven" individual?

Not really no.

Just curious. Not mocking you.

That's comforting.

May I ask if you have an opinion at all on how life arrived here. Differentiating from saying "I believe this is true" and "I think this may be true" and "I know this to be true".

No.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

superstring01,

All species are "intermediate" between something and another. You're merely looking at one Poloroid shot of a million tiny transitions that happen over millions of years.

How so?

If you see an Acanthostega fossil, then a Cynodont then an Australopithecus, those are "transitional" fossils.

I have, and I don't see it. Why are they ''transitional fossils?

All fossils are transitional. They are show a marking point. The silly and quite intelligectually dishonest nonsense about "transitional" fossils is both proof that all those spouting that arguments are either full knowing liars or pathetically ignorant of the facts.

Okay, all you've done is say all fossils are transitional, and the three fossils you pin-pointed were testimony to that. Now you accuse folk of being intellectually dishonest, liars, or ignorant of the facts, without actually explaining why they are transitional. What is the scientific process that allow you to say that these fossils ARE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS? Without appealing to one having to make the leap of imagination?

What would a transitional fossil between a human and its apelike ancestor look like? We've got one: Australopithecus.

Did you see what you did there? You immediately went to the answer at the back of the book, without breaking it down.
This is what I find with mainstream evolutionary science, you don't explain anything, and we are expected to take your word for it.

What would a transitional fossil between fish and reptile look like? We've got one: Acanthostega.
What would a transitional fossil between a reptile and mammal look like? We've got one: Cynodont.

Like I said, I'm not interested in pictures, unless there is something in the pictures that show beyond reasonable doubt that these are transitional fossils.

Everything you've asked for exists, it's just that--like all delusional cheaters--you keep adjusting the goal posts to make it ever-more impossible to meet your demands,

You've shown me pictures, and said, ''here are transitional fossils'', so how am I supposed to know that they are what you say?
How do YOU know they are transitional fossils?

to the point where you're asking for every single interconnected fossil from all of time demonstrating the incremental transitions

I want to know how you know they are transitional fossils without having to show me the pictures (unless you need to pinpoint something in particular).

It's like in Star Trek the Motion Picture where V'Ger is looking for its god and knows that the gods exist on Earth. Upon arriving on Earth it assumes that the humans are an infestation and begins a process to wipe them out to "absorb" the Earth and become one with its god (somewhere in the Earth). Frustrated that its many hundreds of years of searching are ending in disappointment when it discovers that humans are, in fact, its creators it opts for the typical theist approach: destroy any evidence and shift the goalposts pointing towards the obvious truth: NO god. Simply science. Nothing special. All the big business you've made about your existence being bigger than it is. Well it's all a lie. ZAP. Destroy the evidence or call it fake.

A telling bit of science fiction that mimics how Christians and Muslims work; how they've always worked.

This does sound interesting, and I would love to explore it, but I don't fully understand the point your trying to makel.

That's you. That's theists today. Every major scientist in every major branch in every country on earth don't accept Evolution on vague evidence.
There isn't a world conspiracy.

I'm beginning to thing that there is a world conspiracy, because I don't believe that every scientist accepts the mainstream explanation of evolution.

This isn't some rare science that has a lot of assumptions where one or two lone scientists can topple the book of knowledge (as still happens). This is speciation by evolution, one of the most studied fields of science that has been vigorously explored and tested over and over again, with mountains of evidence and supporting other evidence fields all accepted by the most brilliant minds on earth . . . except those with no education and strong religious views with a thousands-year history of brainwashing and hiding the truth.

It's the part about one kind turning into another kind, that is controversial.
You guys extrapolate that from the KNOWN science, ie, change within a kind, dogs remain dogs, and birds remain birds. Now you're saying that macro-evolution IS evolution, meaning there is no difference between micro, and macro. Yet, the evidence that is there for one, isn't the same as the other.
You guys don't seem to get it.

The standards that theists ask for are so ridiculous that it's now approaching comical.

No it's not. You're making an extraordinary claim that one kind of animal grows into another, completely different kind of animal, and you've got nothing to show
for it, other than words and pictures. You say ''the fossil record'', but it's very cagey as to how one comes to the ''fact'' that this actually happened.

These are the same people who believe that a magical god created Adam and Eve.
A pillar of fire and pillar of cloud.
Men walking on water.
A pedophile receiving god's holy word and memorizing the entire text of the Koran.

By ''pedophile'' I take it you mean the Prophet Muhammad?
What did you hope to gain by describing him as a ''pedophile''?
Or is it a case of it just made you feel good?

At what point in time does the silliness stop and people actually get an education in science.

I think you need to wake up, and realise that my questions aren't silly, and try and answer for your own sake, because if you can't
then your deluded. I eagerly await a serious response to my questions, preferably without attacking me, or anyone who doesn't agree with you.

There's a reason why so many scientists are atheists.

Because it pays to keep God on the back burner?

They don't start out that way. Most start out as theists.

I'm inclined to think alot of them are theist, but they daren't mention it for fear of losing their credibility, and funding.

t's just that the rigorous process of getting an education tends to teach each student about the stupidity of religion and religious arguments.

How does ''education'' (academic i take it) ''teach about the stupidity of religion.....''


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The same process that makes you intermediate between your mother and your son.

What's that?

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

What's that?

jan.

Allelic inheritance. I assume you're not going to tell us that heritability, too, is a fraud?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Allelic inheritance. I assume you're not going to tell us that heritability, too, is a fraud?

How does it determine an intermediate species?

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

You asked how one arrives at an intermediate individual.

Speciation may occur via the accumulation of small allelic differences, which are heritable. Canids, for example, appear to be in the process of speciation; wolves and coyotes generally do not interbreed, and probably never would, but for high mortality where they inhabit the same areas in Ontario. However, physical differences in canids are heritable. Wolf-coyote hybrids may favour one species or another to a degree, but overall appear...intermediate.

 

[James R]

Jan:

Your genes are different from those of your mother. You are not identical to your mother. If you have a child, that child has different genes than you, and is not a clone of you.

This is all that is required for evolution. Variation, reproduction and natural selection.

Instead of asking us to teach you the basics of evolution here, why don't you pick up a basic introductory text at your local library or bookshop and read it?

 

[GeoffP]

None of this matters. The new dark age is coming.

 

[wynn]

Instead of asking us to teach you the basics of evolution here, why don't you pick up a basic introductory text at your local library or bookshop and read it?

Reading about the theory of evolution won't automatically convince one that the theory of evolution is true, or that it can adequately address all the questions a person may have about life.

A person may have questions about life that official science cannot or isn't willing to address.
To promote the theory of evolution as some kind of panacea is just fallacious.

 

[James R]

wynn:

Reading about the theory of evolution won't automatically convince one that the theory of evolution is true, or that it can adequately address all the questions a person may have about life.

Taking your points in order:

1. Of course not. Some people will disregard all arguments and evidence in order to stick to a preconceived notion. Some people won't understand what they read. Some people won't read the right things about evolution - they'll read pseudoscientific crap.

2. Obviously, no scientific theory can answer all of the questions a person may have about life. And, I point out, obviously I would never make the absurd claim that it could.

A person may have questions about life that official science cannot or isn't willing to address.
To promote the theory of evolution as some kind of panacea is just fallacious.

Then it's a good thing that nobody here is promoting it as such, isn't it?

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

How do YOU know they are transitional fossils?

EVERY fossil is intermediate between the creature that gave it birth and the offspring it has. EVERY SINGLE ONE. You probably live with such creatures which have been changed(transitioned)between the progenor and the offspring in the time that man has been keeping written records. The Arioch was the only type of cattle known by man 2000 years ago, they would not have recognized a Guernsey or an Angus as cattle but we know that they both came from that original stock and every breed(and individual within that breed)is a transition. Chihuahuas didn't exist until man bred them from wolf stock, cats were bred from wild stock as well. Man has forced transitions in plant stock as well, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Brussels Sprouts and Cabbage are all transitions from one original species produced by man through selective breeding. Horses and donkeys were once the same species, we know that because they can still interbreed to produce offspring. But we call them separate species because the offspring they produce are sterile and can not produce offspring.

Don't forget to add that there is no observation of one kind of creature turning into another kind, hence it is only speculation.

When one closes one's eyes no observation is possible, but when one actually looks they see the transition from one species to another EVERYWHERE. It is not speculation, it is observed fact, evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth. There are no Crocoducks, but there are cattle/Bison, Horse/Donkey/mule, Lions/Tigers, Wolves/dogs, Bluejays/Ostriches/Penguins, apes/man. It's clearly shown by the fossil record, lab studies and the written history of mankind for those not blinded by what they presuppose(believe)to be true.

I think you need to wake up, and realise that my questions aren't silly

You need to wake up and realize you questions are based on a strawman of what you BELIEVE evolution says and thus not only silly, but ignorant as well.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

Then it's a good thing that nobody here is promoting it as such, isn't it?

Oh really??