Quote:Lol. So now you know EVERYONE who has studied or espoused evolutionary theory and you can personally attest to their study habits huh? lol. was that before or after Bill Nye's show?
Are you asserting that people that espouse evolution have not thought about the creation narrative in at least one of it's hundreds of forms? You really think there are people that are aware of evolution but not of creation narratives?
What's your beef with Bill Nye?
Quote:In general let me make a couple of points.
1.) The idea that it is impossible to have a discussion about the origins of the universe without descending into sectarian chaos is fundamentally antithetical to the existence of this sub-forum. Think about it. We have the basic guidelines that this isn't the place for religious Dogma or ideology yet here we are 11 pages in and we have shifted through discussion points without anyone having to personally divulge their particular faith or background. Ultimately, its the goal of all education to create individuals who can conduct themselves in a civilized manner in the arena of ideas.
2.) T.J. bender gets a gold star.
3.) I have said before and I'll restate it (as someone who proudly believes in a creation narrative) I have zero objection to teaching Evolution in the classroom. I have zero objection to teaching big bang theory in the classroom. My objection is this. Teach bot theories in whole. In the case of the Big Bang that would include that in a lot of ways the idea that our universe and all the matter/energy there in has an age is somewhat paradoxical to the way that we know energy behaves. In the case of evolution, it should also include that evolution even Macro evolution DOES NOT account for the ORIGINS of life on earth. That's a separate hypothesis (not a scientific theory yet) called abiogenesis. And this hypothesis would again be paradoxical with conventional bio-genesis that is currently a scientific law. The problem i have is when you see some people who think their beliefs are rooted in science and then when you have a conversation with them the moment that you ask them what a founder population is or talk about reproductive isolation and their eyes glaze over.
So evolution is fact and there is no controversy to teach? Tell people screaming to teach it then.
In addition there have been a couple of successful experimentation in abiogenesis. Fully solved? Of course, not but I'll take part way for now over nothing at all as it shows they at least appear to be on the right track.
Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%...experiment
Quote:Are you asserting that people that espouse evolution have not thought about the creation narrative in at least one of it's hundreds of forms? You really think there are people that are aware of evolution but not of creation narratives?
What's your beef with Bill Nye?
lol, first it was thought about it a great deal and now its at least once in one of its forms.
And no, i am not asserting anything about people that espouse evolution. I am asserting that you do not speak for all of them.
And Bill Nye was a cool show when we were kids. At the same time you guys keep making reference to some debate he had without demonstrating your own personal understanding of the subject matter.
Quote:lol, first it was thought about it a great deal and now its at least once in one of its forms.
And no, i am not asserting anything about people that espouse evolution. I am asserting that you do not speak for all of them.
And Bill Nye was a cool show when we were kids. At the same time you guys keep making reference to some debate he had without demonstrating your own personal understanding of the subject matter.
You seem to have a hard time with this whole reading thing.
I never claimed to speak for them. You are inferring something that I did not say. What I did say was:
I'd wager
every person espousing evolution has thought a great deal about it. I know I have.
I would wager..... Either you are not reading things correctly or you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm going with the latter.
Why are you latching onto this Bill Nye thing? A handful of posts mentioning it in an 11 page thread? You are grasping.
While you attempt to criticize people on their knowledge of the subject matter, I believe several of us are waiting for some evidence on your end..... Literally anything other than well science hasn't definitively proved everything to your satisfaction would probably suffice. That seems to be your entire argument.
Quote:So evolution is fact and there is no controversy to teach? Tell people screaming to teach it then.
In addition there have been a couple of successful experimentation in abiogenesis. Fully solved? Of course, not but I'll take part way for now over nothing at all as it shows they at least appear to be on the right track.
Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%...experiment
yes, the allel frequencies within a species change over time, no that does not inherently mean that we evolved from Apes.
Yes, you can get amino acids to form under certain conditions. If going from atoms to a living cell were listed out in a thousand steps you just successfully demonstrated numbers 3-6. In the event that we reach the mid hundreds then we might have something to talk about.
And i have no problem that your faith Guides you to believe that there will be a natural explanation for the existence of life and the origin of the universe. I am sad that you can't admit that it is a faith.
We can debate all we want about an omniscient creator, what we cannot debate is that no one here is omniscient. In the absence of this trait then there are invariably things that we don't know and cannot be sure of even in the simplest decisions and assumptions that we make every day. We may have belief based on previous experience that our cars will start in the morning but we don't go out and actually inspect the coil packs spark plugs and starter every morning. We may read something in a book about an experiment that was conducted or a discovery that was made and we accept or reject its findings based on what we have already experienced and observed. Each of us has our own unique filters for what qualifies as credible or not. That's why you feel comfortable linking me to a page and don't feel the need to duplicate the results of the above experiment. That's not a slight its just a fact.
truth is infinite. Any on persons understanding is finite. the bridge that we as human beings use between our own consciousness to interact with the real world is FAITH the ability to perceive beyond ourselves. I cringe to see so many hide from the thing that forms the very basis of what separates us from the rest of the inhabitants of this planet.
Quote:yes, the allel frequencies within a species change over time, no that does not inherently mean that we evolved from Apes.
Yes, you can get amino acids to form under certain conditions. If going from atoms to a living cell were listed out in a thousand steps you just successfully demonstrated numbers 3-6. In the event that we reach the mid hundreds then we might have something to talk about.
And i have no problem that your faith Guides you to believe that there will be a natural explanation for the existence of life and the origin of the universe. I am sad that you can't admit that it is a faith.
We can debate all we want about an omniscient creator, what we cannot debate is that no one here is omniscient. In the absence of this trait then there are invariably things that we don't know and cannot be sure of even in the simplest decisions and assumptions that we make every day. We may have belief based on previous experience that our cars will start in the morning but we don't go out and actually inspect the coil packs spark plugs and starter every morning. We may read something in a book about an experiment that was conducted or a discovery that was made and we accept or reject its findings based on what we have already experienced and observed. Each of us has our own unique filters for what qualifies as credible or not. That's why you feel comfortable linking me to a page and don't feel the need to duplicate the results of the above experiment. That's not a slight its just a fact.
truth is infinite. Any on persons understanding is finite. the bridge that we as human beings use between our own consciousness to interact with the real world is FAITH the ability to perceive beyond ourselves. I cringe to see so many hide from the thing that forms the very basis of what separates us from the rest of the inhabitants of this planet.
Let me get this straight. You attempt to criticize people for their "lack of knowledge of the subject matter" than throw that nonsense out there? You know what makes me cringe? That you guys still say the bolded above.
Is it the whole story? No of course it's not. Only one side of this argument claims to have all the answers when some things are unknowns. What those things do show is the abiogenesis is possible and is a promising hypothesis. More research is clearly needed and is being done. That's what science does. It takes unknowns and studies them until they are known.
Quote:Let me get this straight. You attempt to criticize people for their "lack of knowledge of the subject matter" than throw that nonsense out there? You know what makes me cringe? That you guys still say the bolded above.
Is it the whole story? No of course it's not. Only one side of this argument claims to have all the answers when some things are unknowns. What those things do show is the abiogenesis is possible and is a promising hypothesis. More research is clearly needed and is being done. That's what science does. It takes unknowns and studies them until they are known.
You forgot "and teaches incomplete theory as fact or presents value judgements as science when politically necessary to support favored leftist causes."
Quote:You forgot "and teaches incomplete theory as fact or presents value judgements as science when politically necessary to support favored leftist causes."
We can keep explaining science to you but we can't make you understand it. :-(
Why so bitter over science?
Quote:We can keep explaining science to you but we can't make you understand it. :-(
Why so bitter over science?
Bitter over leftist control of its use in many arenas, particularly a few discussed in other threads in this forum. A tool for control and a club to beat political contrarians into submission more than a method of learning and advancement.
Quote:Let me get this straight. You attempt to criticize people for their "lack of knowledge of the subject matter" than throw that nonsense out there? You know what makes me cringe? That you guys still say the bolded above.
Is it the whole story? No of course it's not. Only one side of this argument claims to have all the answers when some things are unknowns. What those things do show is the abiogenesis is possible and is a promising hypothesis. More research is clearly needed and is being done. That's what science does. It takes unknowns and studies them until they are known.
1.) you can cringe all you want. Evolution at its core definition is the idea that allele frequencies (presentation of certain traits) is dynamic. No one disputes that. The disconnect that you and i seem to be having is about what that means and about what has been proven through direct and indirect observation. For example. The average shoe size and average height in north america has changed over the last century. By definition this is an example of the population of north America evolving. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there has been a radical beneficial mutation in North America to facilitate this. Its selection and emphasis of a pre-existing set of traits within the gene pool.
When you talk about a population of organisms developing radically new traits through mutation, and then undergoing reproductive isolation (rough definition of speciation) then you are talking about a completely different process that would need to observe the natural introduction of new traits to a population of organisms. This has not been observed directly or indirectly in science. What we have learned is that for the most part genomes of species are inherently dynamic with almost limitless variations within the construct of any given species. This late begs the question that within a given species if the presentation of the gene structures is so inherently diverse what would be the need for a complex and improbable mutation to add new information? Both sexual reproduction and conjugation in single celled organisms help display said diversity over time and in most cases present a variety of options for nature to select on their own, like different cell wall shapes in bacteria that can make them more resistant to certain vaccines or different configurations of appendages in more complex land animals that make them more efficient predators.
As Eric Stated before, there is no assertion of rigidity of species on our part, but there is no evidence to support the general idea that species change radically into another species or have the need to. When you search the relevant data what you find is, more often than not, when new species or subspecies are named they are named because of observed difference in traits of fossils without a complete and thorough investigation to see if that trait is still present or recessive within a given gene pool or that the organism would have been reproductively isolated from its contemporaries. and even if they were, that brings me to my second point.
2.) you want to believe, and that's commendable. But the production of tritium atoms doesn't mean that you can achieve nuclear fusion at room temperature anymore than amino acids plus water equals the spontaneous generation of a living cell. People still under estimate the inherent level of complexity in a single celled organism. It was thought until somewhat recently that single celled bacteria were truly simple and that's why it was thought the could spontaneously generate from things like chicken broth or that the grubs spontaneously generated from the meat that was left out too long. What we've discovered now is that even the simplest living cells is blown up to scale would be like walking into a space ship with certain mechanisms and controls that we are still trying to understand (the analogy my biology professor used.) To say that the production of amino acids in a test tube proves that abiogenesis is possible throws on its face that in all of mans recorded history we have never observed it happen, cannot theorize how it would happen, and can only grasp at the very building blocks to think it remotely possible. The example would be taking a bunch of iron and copper ore and throwing it over a thousand foot cliff expecting a fully assembled car at the bottom. It's a rough analogy only because the single celled organism would be far more complex than the car.
I will say this, jj, you seem to be getting less disagreeable in you disagreements...
You're still way off base, but carry on.
And I'd stay away from the car analogies, just a suggestion. :-)
Quote:1.) you can cringe all you want. Evolution at its core definition is the idea that allele frequencies (presentation of certain traits) is dynamic. No one disputes that. The disconnect that you and i seem to be having is about what that means and about what has been proven through direct and indirect observation. For example. The average shoe size and average height in north america has changed over the last century. By definition this is an example of the population of north America evolving. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there has been a radical beneficial mutation in North America to facilitate this. Its selection and emphasis of a pre-existing set of traits within the gene pool.
When you talk about a population of organisms developing radically new traits through mutation, and then undergoing reproductive isolation (rough definition of speciation) then you are talking about a completely different process that would need to observe the natural introduction of new traits to a population of organisms. This has not been observed directly or indirectly in science. What we have learned is that for the most part genomes of species are inherently dynamic with almost limitless variations within the construct of any given species. This late begs the question that within a given species if the presentation of the gene structures is so inherently diverse what would be the need for a complex and improbable mutation to add new information? Both sexual reproduction and conjugation in single celled organisms help display said diversity over time and in most cases present a variety of options for nature to select on their own, like different cell wall shapes in bacteria that can make them more resistant to certain vaccines or different configurations of appendages in more complex land animals that make them more efficient predators.
As Eric Stated before, there is no assertion of rigidity of species on our part, but there is no evidence to support the general idea that species change radically into another species or have the need to. When you search the relevant data what you find is, more often than not, when new species or subspecies are named they are named because of observed difference in traits of fossils without a complete and thorough investigation to see if that trait is still present or recessive within a given gene pool or that the organism would have been reproductively isolated from its contemporaries. and even if they were, that brings me to my second point.
2.) you want to believe, and that's commendable. But the production of tritium atoms doesn't mean that you can achieve nuclear fusion at room temperature anymore than amino acids plus water equals the spontaneous generation of a living cell. People still under estimate the inherent level of complexity in a single celled organism. It was thought until somewhat recently that single celled bacteria were truly simple and that's why it was thought the could spontaneously generate from things like chicken broth or that the grubs spontaneously generated from the meat that was left out too long. What we've discovered now is that even the simplest living cells is blown up to scale would be like walking into a space ship with certain mechanisms and controls that we are still trying to understand (the analogy my biology professor used.) To say that the production of amino acids in a test tube proves that abiogenesis is possible throws on its face that in all of mans recorded history we have never observed it happen, cannot theorize how it would happen, and can only grasp at the very building blocks to think it remotely possible. The example would be taking a bunch of iron and copper ore and throwing it over a thousand foot cliff expecting a fully assembled car at the bottom. It's a rough analogy only because the single celled organism would be far more complex than the car.
I didn't say it proves it. I said it shows that it's possible you claim its not enough. You don't want to believe because it challenges your greater beliefs. That's understandable. You want 100% proof fact for one while still providing zero evidence for the other. That, to me is neither understandable, nor reasonable. That's the problem i have with creationism. It doesnt require anything real or tangible to prove or disprove. Hence its not a science.
The best part about science is it doesn't matter what you or I think or believe. It just is and its slowly being unraveled regardless of those clinging to centuries old beliefs.
Quote:I didn't say it proves it. I said it shows that it's possible you claim its not enough. You don't want to believe because it challenges your greater beliefs. That's understandable. You want 100% proof fact for one while still providing zero evidence for the other. That, to me is neither understandable, nor reasonable. That's the problem i have with creationism. It doesnt require anything real or tangible to prove or disprove. Hence its not a science.
The best part about science is it doesn't matter what you or I think or believe. It just is and its slowly being unraveled regardless of those clinging to centuries old beliefs.
I gave a very detailed reason based on biology that i don't feel the above citation proves the possibility of abiogensis. If you disagree with my critique of the hypothesis then that's fine, you are free to respond in kind but you can't just cast me aside because of my greater beliefs. Also i find it ironic that you are bringing up my greater belief system when i haven't and at the same time asserting that my ilk is the first to deviate from strict discussion of fact.
And in totality as i have stated above and will continue to, the idea that there is a greater intelligent designer/creator is a conclusion based on the same evidence that we're all looking at. From the start i have never said that i want to exclude anyone from the arena of ideas concerning the education of young people. What i have said, and what i will NEVER BACK DOWN ON is that if you present something as proven or settled then you better able to show that it is proven and settled and if there are ideas or theories that have not been conclusively proven state that as well as the scientific arguments for and against. Is that so much to ask?
Quote:Bingo.
Agreed. B-dreau sums it up perfectly.
Quote:I gave a very detailed reason based on biology that i don't feel the above citation proves the possibility of abiogensis. If you disagree with my critique of the hypothesis then that's fine, you are free to respond in kind but you can't just cast me aside because of my greater beliefs. Also i find it ironic that you are bringing up my greater belief system when i haven't and at the same time asserting that my ilk is the first to deviate from strict discussion of fact.
And in totality as i have stated above and will continue to, the idea that there is a greater intelligent designer/creator is a conclusion based on the same evidence that we're all looking at. From the start i have never said that i want to exclude anyone from the arena of ideas concerning the education of young people. What i have said, and what i will NEVER BACK DOWN ON is that if you present something as proven or settled then you better able to show that it is proven and settled and if there are ideas or theories that have not been conclusively proven state that as well as the scientific arguments for and against. Is that so much to ask?
Help me understand your evidence that there is a creator.
Quote:Help me understand your evidence that there is a creator.
For starters there's never been a scientific observation of something coming from nothing. The basic laws of physics are everything has an origin point. So the theory of a random collision starting a chain reaction requires the suspension of everything we've ever observed that everything came from something.
Eric, you see referring to the law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed... but I think you are incorrectly applying that law to molecular chemistry/biology...
Quote:For starters there's never been a scientific observation of something coming from nothing. The basic laws of physics are everything has an origin point. So the theory of a random collision starting a chain reaction requires the suspension of everything we've ever observed that everything came from something.
So do we have evidence of a creator?
Quote:I gave a very detailed reason based on biology that i don't feel the above citation proves the possibility of abiogensis. If you disagree with my critique of the hypothesis then that's fine, you are free to respond in kind but you can't just cast me aside because of my greater beliefs. Also i find it ironic that you are bringing up my greater belief system when i haven't and at the same time asserting that my ilk is the first to deviate from strict discussion of fact.
And in totality as i have stated above and will continue to, the idea that there is a greater intelligent designer/creator is a conclusion based on the same evidence that we're all looking at. From the start i have never said that i want to exclude anyone from the arena of ideas concerning the education of young people. What i have said, and what i will NEVER BACK DOWN ON is that if you present something as proven or settled then you better able to show that it is proven and settled and if there are ideas or theories that have not been conclusively proven state that as well as the scientific arguments for and against. Is that so much to ask?
Oh you have discounted it? Well then, stop the presses, inform the media, and get Hawking and is buddies on the line to let them know you've fully debunked the science. Who do you think has more credibility? The scientists of the world or you?
Just to be clear here. You have come to a conclusion with absolutely zero evidence on the matter? Clearly you approaching this very scientifically. So you are going present some evidence at some point? Anything at all?It seems your argument rests solely on science only having some answer and some predictions and not all the answers or all the predictions. That's pretty weak when your opposing view has nothing to stand on.