Denial of evolution III

[iceaura]

But what science says should be based on the evidence. As for the start to life creation is very possible.

So you agree that science should say nothing about "creation", unless there is evidence of it.

And you agree that silence on matters about which there is no evidence is not (in science) a matter of faith, but instead the proper and ordinary operations of science. You agree that the issue is not what is possible, in some theoretical sense, but what is supported by evidence.

Then why do you make a big deal out of it, when science ignores "creation" hypotheses and other invocations of miracle, for which there is no evidence?

 

[Billy T]

I answered your #61 post, earlier

Not really as you made many assumptions about complex "parts" such as DNA and "reproduction facilites" that were not in my simple first cell models and then asked how these additions you assumed could have come to be. - That is a "false reply" or strawman.

Comment on ONLY what I said, not your assumed additions to it. The simple cells I postulated "reproduced" by ocean waves breaking them into smaller ones. They were also formed by the waves rolling the surface "skum" into tubes with pinched off ends

The "skum" was a monolayer of aligned molecules which have one end hydrophobic and other hydrofillic (much like our cells walls). They are known to form (And the amino-acids too) in the conditions of the early Earth. (Before free oxygen was made by plants).

You no doubt have used / demonstrated / their spontaneous alignment / film forming nature as a child when making soap bubbles with detergent. (Its molecules also have one end hydrophobic and the other hydrofillic)

More details at post 61, not one part of which you did discuss in your "reply." Respond to my post, not just show your assumed additions of "complex parts" are not likely to be the first cells. See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397705&postcount=61

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

SG in case you didnt know, RNA is capable of self-catalysis.

Some RNA is capable of self-replication by its own enzymic activity, but this is not true of RNA as a whole. The sub-class of RNAs with enzymic activity are called ribozymes. Although not common in today's world, they are a key feature of the RNA World hypothesis.

 

[786]

So really - we are still at the "This is a non Issue and a non-talking point and you fucking well know it!" stage.

No.... You gave example of physics- that was physics vs physics the end result was also physics- right?

I'm talking about the damn INTERPRETATION.......

Is there a understanding of the world other than science.... hell yes! The very same experiments and data can be used to INTERPRET them differently- that would not be called science- but it would still be reflection of the world.

You are asking that scientific evidence be presented to reject science- this can be done if the current theory doesn't fit the new data..... but the end result will still be science- I'm talking about a different INTERPRETATION of the data which does not follow the scientific thought.

You read some buddhist stuff- it can mean exactly as what it is saying.... or it can be taken to mean something more spiritual.... How the fuck do you see spirituality in TEXT! INTERPRETATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole universe is like a damn textbook that you can interpret it in various ways that still fit the damn data- You won't call the other things science but who made science the default choice? Evolution, and actually all of Science, can be denied because other ways of understanding the world are there!!!

You guys are the only ones claiming that scientific evidence is required to deny evolution..... I'm saying if you interpret THE SAME DATA differently, you CAN deny Evolution..... This is not competition in scientific theory but competition in DISCIPLE- Science vs X - different interpretation of the same data.... This is a reason that evolution can be denied... The only thing that is common between the two is the data.... the way you interpret it is different...

Secondly, if science Can't prove anything in the ultimate sense of the world 'prove' then it can be denied- doesn't mean you can accept something else- BUT IT CAN BE DENIED!

The thread is about 'denial of evolution' - Denial doesn't have to be scientific!

Did I get through to you now?

Peace be unto you

 

[jpappl]

Hay,

but backed away when they realized that Mars soil would kill any life from starting there.

Here,

http://www.physorg.com/news87401064.html

As to where God comes from no one knows.

Yes, and yet you accept creationism as the answer and you don't even know where the creator came from or how he came to be.

At the same time, you are grilling science for not having these answers and science has not claimed to have these answers. Only religions make that claim.

So, your questions are really for the religious. For example, you keep mentioning that you are after the truth and you want evidence to back up this truth.

Those who claim to know the truth, the creationists have no evidence of a god, yet you accept without evidence.

Hmmm.

 

[iceaura]

I'm saying if you interpret THE SAME DATA differently, you CAN deny Evolution

Well, sure.

You have to show that you can interpret THE SAME DATA differently, in some way that makes sense, though. That's where you are running into problems.

 

[786]

Well, sure.

You have to show that you can interpret THE SAME DATA differently, in some way that makes sense, though. That's where you are running into problems.

Ok show me where I interpreted the data differently.... I only talking in the general sense that Evolution can be denied.

You want me to reinterpret the data differently- here I go....

Here's a new idea:

everything evolution says except that God specifically caused the mutations that lead to humans..... Now you can go ahead and prove me wrong- that is if you can prove Evolution wrong...........

Don't call it science- just call it Theohomolution. Whenever you find the proof that God didn't cause the specific mutations let me know..... because I see the same mutations as you do... the difference is in assumptions.....

Here's another one:

Evolution by Godly Selection - it holds that everything like is held in Evolution except that it is God who is selecting based on conditions that need to be met to be 'selected'- the conditions are exactly upon which Natural Selection acts in the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Same results, compatible with data- different assumptions.

Peace be unto you

 

[hay_you]

In short very Few DNA instructions would be there think of it like this the DNA is the Programmer and the cell is the program the programmer in influenced by outside sources as mentioned before so it will adapt the program in order to achieve a desired result Dependant on what the initial influence and or need would be.

OK . If you think of DNA as the programmer do you not think of intelligence. Of the instructions. The idea of adapting can be programmed in the cell through DNA .
Now to further what you said in your illustration . You could compare the bios to all the parts in a body that need constant monitoring , like the heart and lungs , immune system, digesting food, elimination of wastes etc. . An OS, that you program with language, muscle movement, all processes that you do with out thinking about each day but had to be learned. Then you have separate programs that you learn how to do your work , you interactions with others,how to drive a car, you learn these things but they are more specialized activities like that make up you as an individual.

But all of this is from intelligence. No one thinks a computer just happened.
Now on a computer you have peripheral devises that sense the outside world.
Humans and animals have these also. A computer can be adaptable for the use of the user. Life is like that also.
What I'm to get at is in animals , how did the cell go from no bones or muscles to beginning able to walk around.

 

[hay_you]

Hay,



Here,

http://www.physorg.com/news87401064.html



Yes, and yet you accept creationism as the answer and you don't even know where the creator came from or how he came to be.

At the same time, you are grilling science for not having these answers and science has not claimed to have these answers. Only religions make that claim.

So, your questions are really for the religious. For example, you keep mentioning that you are after the truth and you want evidence to back up this truth.

Those who claim to know the truth, the creationists have no evidence of a god, yet you accept without evidence.

Hmmm.

This is from this article

The researchers acknowledge that their hypothesis requires further exploration. “We can be absolutely wrong, and there might not be organisms like that at all,” said Schulze-Makuch. “But it’s a consistent explanation that would explain the Viking results.”

But still no life, I already know there are materials in space and on the earth that, were used in making life. But there is only life on this earth.

Yes, and yet you accept creationism as the answer and you don't even know where the creator came from or how he came to be.

At the same time, you are grilling science for not having these answers and science has not claimed to have these answers. Only religions make that claim.

So, your questions are really for the religious. For example, you keep mentioning that you are after the truth and you want evidence to back up this truth.

Actually there is plenty of evidence of a creator. And that is in the creation it'self. If all that was here was little bit of slime some where and that is it , you might get away with that. But that is not what we see. We see all sorts of incredible design and in great variety. A lot of which we try and copy with our limited brain. There is no explanation that accounts for this other than creation. Science does not know how life started and evolution has never been tested to work. Or does the fossil record support evolution.

Those who claim to know the truth, the creationists have no evidence of a god, yet you accept without evidence.

The world is full of evidence.

 

[John99]

There is no explanation that accounts for this other than creation.

According to you.

Science does not know how life started

and you know?

 

[(Q)]

But all of this is from intelligence. No one thinks a computer just happened.

True. Computers evolved as well, from simple beginnings. The main flaw you have in your assertions is that you fail to grasp the fact that evolution occurs over vast expanses of time, so incredibly huge, our puny minds cannot fathom. At best, our brains can take a realistic snapshot of about 100 years and find relevance within.

But, what evolution is undergoing takes millions of years, sometimes tens and hundreds of millions of years depending on how far you want to go back.

As well, life evolved from very simple beginnings in which small changes occurred resulting in more complex life forms. This didn't happen overnight. There were no hearts and lungs and other vital organs in those life forms back then. They very slowly evolved over time.

And, there is no intelligence required to drive this process, only an environment in which the life forms will attempt to survive and thrive.

I see that you're caught up in the creationist fallacy of instantaneous life forms and are ignoring the concept of simple beginnings evolving to complex forms over vast periods of time. When you get caught up in this cycle, you have no argument whatsoever.

 

[S.A.M.]

are ignoring the concept of simple beginnings evolving to complex forms over vast periods of time

Are you unquivocally stating that evolution has a direction from simple to complex? That evolution is synonymous with progress?

 

[hay_you]

According to you.



and you know?

From creation. It is science that has taken on the job of finding out how it was done? So far they don't know. Could it be they are searching in the wrong direction.

 

[jpappl]

Hay,

But still no life, I already know there are materials in space and on the earth that, were used in making life. But there is only life on this earth.

That is not what they are saying at all, they are saying that the tests to determine life were positive. The tests that created doubt in the original test were later confirmed to be an error because of a chemical response they were unaware of and now realize the original test was correct. Life in other words was confirmed.

However, in science which is smart, it's best to continue to do more testing not only to make sure there was no other error than could be present but also to continue to search for more.

So, again, what are you going to do when we find other life forms outside of earth ?

Actually there is plenty of evidence of a creator. And that is in the creation it'self

Yep, that is standard religious babble.

If all that was here was little bit of slime some where and that is it , you might get away with that. But that is not what we see. We see all sorts of incredible design and in great variety

Ok, so if this designer was so smart and advanced, god in other words. Why did he create all the slime and molds and bacteria and everything that came before us, what was he practicing. Why would god need to practice ?

You are not demanding the same amount of scrutiny be applied to your own beliefs that you are of others.

There is no explanation that accounts for this other than creation.

Yes there is, hundreds of millions of years of steady changes adapting to changing environments.

The amount of evidence here is overwhelming. Furthermore, if you persist in believing in your religious texts version of creation.

Then I ask, do you believe in dinosaurs ?

Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth etc etc ?

Science does not know how life started and evolution has never been tested to work

Doesn't KNOW how life started, yes. Doesn't have a better answer than god did it, no.

Why do you think bugs become immune to our efforts to kill them. How is that possible ? If there were simply created as they are, then once we learned how to kill them, that would be the end of it, but it's not. They keep adapting and changing with what they are being tested with.

That is evidence of evolution right there.

Or does the fossil record support evolution.

Yep. The fossil record is growing everyday. Gaps will continue to be filled and there will be gaps because not everything that evolved and every step was captured by the fossilization process.

“ Those who claim to know the truth, the creationists have no evidence of a god, yet you accept without evidence. ”

The world is full of evidence.

Sure, whatever you want to tell yourself.

 

[hay_you]

True. Computers evolved as well, from simple beginnings. The main flaw you have in your assertions is that you fail to grasp the fact that evolution occurs over vast expanses of time, so incredibly huge, our puny minds cannot fathom. At best, our brains can take a realistic snapshot of about 100 years and find relevance within.

But, what evolution is undergoing takes millions of years, sometimes tens and hundreds of millions of years depending on how far you want to go back.

As well, life evolved from very simple beginnings in which small changes occurred resulting in more complex life forms. This didn't happen overnight. There were no hearts and lungs and other vital organs in those life forms back then. They very slowly evolved over time.

And, there is no intelligence required to drive this process, only an environment in which the life forms will attempt to survive and thrive.

I see that you're caught up in the creationist fallacy of instantaneous life forms and are ignoring the concept of simple beginnings evolving to complex forms over vast periods of time. When you get caught up in this cycle, you have no argument whatsoever.

The thing about computers is they are all done by mans intelligence. Creation.
But what you said brings something up. You said that computers evolved. So do you mean when you say evolution of life that it there was intelligence behind it? ( A creator ?)
Millions of years does not replace creation. Bread or even a Harley does not happen just because of a million years.

And, there is no intelligence required to drive this process, only an environment in which the life forms will attempt to survive and thrive.

Actually science doesn't know this. Life forms could have been created to survive.

 

[hay_you]

Are you unquivocally stating that evolution has a direction from simple to complex? That evolution is synonymous with progress?

There is variety in life, there are tall humans and short humans , but humans are human and dogs are dogs. There is variety, in dogs as well. But what you don't see is chimps becoming human or dogs becoming cats.

 

[John99]

There is variety in life, there are tall humans and short humans , but humans are human and dogs are dogs. There is variety, in dogs as well. But what you don't see is chimps becoming human or dogs becoming cats.

evolutionists look at there being necessity to evolve and that evolution\transition took a long time to occur.

of course you have seen two different dog breed create another breed.

 

[786]

evolutionists look at there being necessity to evolve and that evolution\transition took a long time to occur.

of course you have seen two different dog breed create another breed.

Did the breed become a cat? Secondly I don't think creationist deny micro-evolution.

Peace be unto you

 

[hay_you]

Hay,



That is not what they are saying at all, they are saying that the tests to determine life were positive. The tests that created doubt in the original test were later confirmed to be an error because of a chemical response they were unaware of and now realize the original test was correct. Life in other words was confirmed.

However, in science which is smart, it's best to continue to do more testing not only to make sure there was no other error than could be present but also to continue to search for more.

So, again, what are you going to do when we find other life forms outside of earth ?



Yep, that is standard religious babble.



Ok, so if this designer was so smart and advanced, god in other words. Why did he create all the slime and molds and bacteria and everything that came before us, what was he practicing. Why would god need to practice ?

You are not demanding the same amount of scrutiny be applied to your own beliefs that you are of others.



Yes there is, hundreds of millions of years of steady changes adapting to changing environments.

The amount of evidence here is overwhelming. Furthermore, if you persist in believing in your religious texts version of creation.

Then I ask, do you believe in dinosaurs ?

Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth etc etc ?



Doesn't KNOW how life started, yes. Doesn't have a better answer than god did it, no.

Why do you think bugs become immune to our efforts to kill them. How is that possible ? If there were simply created as they are, then once we learned how to kill them, that would be the end of it, but it's not. They keep adapting and changing with what they are being tested with.

That is evidence of evolution right there.



Yep. The fossil record is growing everyday. Gaps will continue to be filled and there will be gaps because not everything that evolved and every step was captured by the fossilization process.



Sure, whatever you want to tell yourself.

So, again, what are you going to do when we find other life forms outside of earth ?

When you do find let me know, and I will ask you to prove that it started on it's own , or was it created?

Yep, that is standard religious babble.

Science has it's own babble. And I am not talking religion I am only talking about science.

Why do you think bugs become immune to our efforts to kill them. How is that possible ? If there were simply created as they are, then once we learned how to kill them, that would be the end of it, but it's not. They keep adapting and changing with what they are being tested with.

That is evidence of evolution right there.

Do you know if they were created to change or not. There are all also sorts of survival methods. Some squirt ink , some puff up, some run fast, some blend in to surroundings, some have power, some are smart , have poisons, some have display, etc. This is built into them. That in itself does not mean it evolved.

 

[(Q)]

Are you unquivocally stating that evolution has a direction from simple to complex? That evolution is synonymous with progress?

Nope.