Denial of evolution III

[hay_you]

You are trolling or at least repeating your questions. - I answered you long ago. See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397705&postcount=61

Yes life starts with a very simple cell. At that thread I told one way (of many) it may have happend (and is extremely likely to have, since "zillions" of not quite life cells were formed every day in the oceans for millions of years.)

Again one cannot prove it did - there is just a lot of supporting evidence and not any known reason why it did not happen that way.

There is NO evidence for the alternative POV that GodmadeIt. And that is not even an explaination for the origins of life or intellgence as begs the question: "WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?"

there is no answer know to the question what is the "first cause" - it does nothing but sweep that question under the rug for simple minded people to say "GodmadeIt." See why that is so at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397595&postcount=48

I answered your #61 post, earlies.

Again one cannot prove it did - there is just a lot of supporting evidence and not any known reason why it did not happen that way.

so it is just a theory at this point, with no proof that actually happened.
Science may discover reasons why actual could not happen that way. Just like Mars, they jumped up and down when they discovered water, but backed away when they realized that Mars soil would kill any life from starting there.

There is NO evidence for the alternative POV that GodmadeIt. And that is not even an explaination for the origins of life or intellgence as begs the question: "WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?"

Well there are scientists now commenting on the order that there seems to be in the universe, so science is earning more all the time.

As to where God comes from no one knows. This is like asking where does the space start and where does it end if there were no material in space. Can you understand no beginning and no end? I can't. No one else has ever explain to help me to understand no beginning, but I can understand no end.
I do think this is a limitation of mans mind.
But ofcourse science has the same problem, what was before the material universe, if it was energy , where did that come from?
Both science and creation has this same problem, so we must both be simple minded.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

First I have not said or used the word 'reject' Evolution- You should understand denial and rejection is not the same thing.

Secondly I didn't say a complex theory would 'better fit' the data- I'm saying if they fit the data with equivalently- even then the simplest explanation is taken- this is how science works.

So.......

so........considering you claim to know how science works, you also know that if that is ever the case, concensus adoption of a theory is unlikely and that further testing would continue to determine which explanation fits best and which would become consensus.
So........ you still know that your point is a non-issue
So........ if you knew that - I ask again - why did you bother to bring it up at all?

You don't realize that I'm not questioning Evolution as a theory but the interpretation of the evidence that makes up the theory.

I do realise that - I'm questioning why you are making a meal over issues that you tacitly admit to knowing are complete non-issues

 

[spidergoat]

I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.

That is:

They accept the 'simplest' explanation....

In other words I believe anything that is part of a theory due to the above method is untrustworthy- that includes a lot of things now...

Peace be unto you

The acceptance of a hypothesis is tentative. One should not trust in a hypothesis simply because it exists.

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

Interesting.

Then how did something like George Clooney evolve? There's no reason to assume that he should evolve and someone like Tom Arnold shouldn't. It's absurd what evolutionists are saying. It might even be racist.

I really don't know what you are trying to say. There IS no reason why a Clooney should exist over a Tom Arnold. From an evolutionary point of view, they are practically identical.

 

[hay_you]

Ok I seem to be caught up.
So on evolution. lets start from a single cell.
From this single cell what happened that started evolution off and running?
How did it slowly change?

 

[786]

so........considering you claim to know how science works, you also know that if that is ever the case, concensus adoption of a theory is unlikely and that further testing would continue to determine which explanation fits best and which would become consensus.

That doesn't change the fact that another explanation can fit the facts just as well- If science has continiously changes its theory so can a different explanation be changed. In essence there are other alternatives always. If all of you have been taught to accept the simplest explanation that fits the data you're going to have a consensus regardless of what the other explanation is. So the mechanism of consensus is built-in, not because it really has been such.

So........ you still know that your point is a non-issue

No I don't, the thread is about denial of evolution... and this is a perfectly reasonable reason to deny (NOT reject) evolution.

So........ if you knew that - I ask again - why did you bother to bring it up at all?

I know that it is not a non-issue- you are simply following the same line of interpreting science- which will cause a consensus because the methodology is the same- the simplest explanation that fits the data.

I do realise that - I'm questioning why you are making a meal over issues that you tacitly admit to knowing are complete non-issues

They are non-issue in terms of science itself because they have already determined their way of thinking- but the thread AGAIN is about 'denial of evolution' (read this over and over again until you realize that) - and also that it is this self-imposed interpretation that you teach to the sheeple- which is a issue all on its own.

Peace be unto you

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Ok I seem to be caught up.
So on evolution. lets start from a single cell.
From this single cell what happened that started evolution off and running?
How did it slowly change?

Well according to Evolution the cell would change to accommodate outside influences. There could be many reasons why it would adapt to it environment perhaps it ran out of a food or energy source and had to take advantage of something else to make it a better preformer for the new environment. In a nutshell of course it would take pages to explain it fully.

 

[786]

The acceptance of a hypothesis is tentative. One should not trust in a hypothesis simply because it exists.

Yes but that does give you the option of denying a hypothesis, knowing that the evidence can be interpreted differently- My discussion is specifically related to how 'denial of evolution' can be logical-

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

so it is just a theory at this point, with no proof that actually happened.

You have been told, more than once, what the word "theory" actually means. And you continue to misuse it.
You have been told, more than once, that science does not prove things. And you continue to ignore it.

Both science and creation has this same problem, so we must both be simple minded.

You have given more than sufficient evidence that any simple-mindedness in this discussion is on your part.
Unless, and until, you either learn something, or at the very least stop making repeated erroneous statements as if they mean something, I'm done with you.

NB this is lieu of going through all the previous posts of yours since I last posted issue by issue.
They're all equally fallacious (that's me being generous: I was seriously tempted to say dishonest, but I can't decide whether you are dishonest or simply so mistaken and off the mark that you genuinely believe what you're saying).

 

[John99]

i would likr to remind hay you that just because you\we do not fully understand something does not mean it didnt or couldnt happen.

 

[hay_you]

Well according to Evolution the cell would change to accommodate outside influences. There could be many reasons why it would adapt to it environment perhaps it ran out of a food or energy source and had to take advantage of something else to make it a better preformer for the new environment. In a nutshell of course it would take pages to explain it fully.

Yes OK I don't pages of info, keeping it simple seems to work OK.
This cell has to divide before it dies, so this would have to be in it from the beginning of it's life. There would be no second chances. This would also have to happen at a faster rate than it dies. It would also have to have a food supply. So given that it has and does all these things. I take it at this point it is not plant or animal. So you have millions of cells just like the first one. But then some thing happens and one of the cells changes a bit. Is this the start of animal cells or plant cells? Or both?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Yes OK I don't pages of info, keeping it simple seems to work OK.
This cell has to divide before it dies, so this would have to be in it from the beginning of it's life. There would be no second chances. This would also have to happen at a faster rate than it dies. It would also have to have a food supply. So given that it has and does all these things. I take it at this point it is not plant or animal. So you have millions of cells just like the first one. But then some thing happens and one of the cells changes a bit. Is this the start of animal cells or plant cells? Or both?

The adaption process again would start from a outside influence such as food source radiation or a whole host of other tangible reason.

 

[hay_you]

You have been told, more than once, what the word "theory" actually means. And you continue to misuse it.
You have been told, more than once, that science does not prove things. And you continue to ignore it.

Listen I know what a theory is. Does this mean I don't have to prove the existence of a creator to science before they will believe me? Do scientists and those that follow science, just follow any made up stories, because they don't have proof of anything. That is blind faith.
Even false religions have more than that. Are you sure that's what you mean?
Or is science just full of 'if and maybe, what if, it might, who knows.( If this happens that will, if this doesn't get in the way, or if that doesn't work maybe this will work)
I think there is more to science than that, I think they do try to prove things and get real results. I don't think they are always right, and I like the ideal they of trying to prove things. But it is this subject of the start to life and evolution where they are not using this ideal. That all I trying to say.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

That doesn't change the fact that another explanation can fit the facts just as well- If science has continiously changes its theory so can a different explanation be changed. In essence there are other alternatives always. If all of you have been taught to accept the simplest explanation that fits the data you're going to have a consensus regardless of what the other explanation is. So the mechanism of consensus is built-in, not because it really has been such.

so far this hasnt happened - so you're talking very much in the hypothetical.

The closest real example would be the initial conflict between Newtonian physics (simple) and Einsteinian Physics (complex).
The complex theory won out because it better explained the facts.
So the only real world example that comes close to what you are whining about - shows that science is both robust enough to handle the problem, and that if a complex explanation is neccessary then it is adopted.

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

Thats all she wrote folks!

 

[hay_you]

The adaption process again would start from a outside influence such as food source radiation or a whole host of other tangible reason.

OK I get this. But does science know the process from a single cell, to get to animal and plant cells. Because most mutations we see now, can be bad for the host. Also these mutation happen to the instructions in the DNA. So what kind of DNA instructions would be in those first cells so that they can mutate?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

OK I get this. But does science know the process from a single cell, to get to animal and plant cells. Because most mutations we see now, can be bad for the host. Also these mutation happen to the instructions in the DNA. So what kind of DNA instructions would be in those first cells so that they can mutate?

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.

 

[(Q)]

I haven't been able to accept anything from you because you don't have a brain to understand

Yet, it's funnier that everyone else is alluding to that fact about you. Funny that.

 

[(Q)]

Don't pollute this thread like you do others

Yet, that's exactly what you're doing in these forums, polluting them with cult indoctrinated bs. I know you don't get that and you could care less for anyones answers here as you'll dismiss it all in favor of your cult doctrines.

 

[John99]

hay you, if you didnt understand thunder you would think that god was bowling or moving furniture up there.

 

[(Q)]

First I have not said or used the word 'reject' Evolution- You should understand denial and rejection is not the same thing.

It pretty much is the same thing, by definition. Look it up.

You don't realize that I'm not questioning Evolution as a theory but the interpretation of the evidence that makes up the theory.

Wouldn't you actually have to know something about evolution before questioning it?

 

[hay_you]

i would likr to remind hay you that just because you\we do not fully understand something does not mean it didn't or couldn't happen.

Of course I agree with this.
I certainty don't claim to know everything about a creator, or even what science knows or doesn't know. But at the same time we were given the ability to reason and to bring information together to form a more complete understanding of things and ask , question like why are we here, whats going to happen in the future, why is the world of man so bad, why do we die, where did we come from etc. It is these kinds of questions that point more for creation rather than evolution. These get in the way for just survival. We would be better off as just an animal, than knowing these questions and not have an answer. Man needs these questions answered. Kids at a young age start with these questions. Most people don't really have answers.
Sciences answers are not complete or accurate. Science says you live you die, get over it. That doesn't work for a little girl that just loses her mother to death or some accident.
This all points to creation.