Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[RiaX]

Yoh, all subjective nonsense. You have tried to counter solid evidence with a set of fancy articulated phrases. Never have I come across such a pathetic counter arguement :wtf: , ok time to tear apart this nonsense.

Bacterial resistance does not prove evolution. Evolution requires an ongoing change from one type of organism to another.

Yes thats like saying carbon atoms dont prove the existance of graphite and diamonds. You assume yourself to be a single living thing because you function with a singular conscious. You are made like so:

cells ---> tissue ----> organs ----> Complex organism.

See a change at the cellular level is sufficient to change the entire chain, especially if that cellular change occurs on the DNA of reproductive cells. You assume it cant be true for complex beings becuase you cant think past your own life span. Evolution didnt happen over night, it took millions of years. Unlike your theory of creationism which basically has god sitting with a bucket of clay and a sculpting knife going "hmmm some snakes and some monkeys and let me make this planet blue", Plastercine ftw no?

The scientific definition of evoultion is: "is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

You describe adaptation, ironically a creationists concept known for millennia

Using a synonym for evolution is not going to disprove it. You cant sectionalise things cause you feel like it.

Ironically for your case the fossil record actually shows life to be largely static and resistant to change.

Because LIFE has EVOLVED to live on earth, not to prove your theories. The earth's conditions since life has not changed drastically. Water oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere with 9.8m/s^2 gravity and acceptable temperatures. Change the environment and the life will change by evolving, antibiotic resistance shows this, in humans race shows this. People living in hotter more sunlight intense regions are darker

The only evidence for the primordial soup is - oh wait there isn't any. You believe that it was there just like you want to believe evolution is true. The problem (for you) is that without that you can't assume there must have been evolution from a primordial soup.

Exstrapolating results to form a theory, quoting parts of a phrase to change its meaning. Very sad grasping for straws now are we? but the same can be said for you, "i dont know where earth came from" ,"god made it", "EPIC DIE HARD TRUTH". Where is your evidence of god show me - oh wait there isnt any as you say

Though it should be kept in mind that ancient civilisations had a tendency to use physical descriptions for things they couldn't comprehend

hence it was the workings of god. The sun = Ra /Helios. Lightning work of zues, tides for neptune/posiden, mars venus jupiter all gods in ancient times. Your modern religions are no different.

How can you claim that eternity cannot exist?

same way you claim it does

change can not exist because anything that changes requires an initial state and ultimate start so it must be an illusion

care to explain our expanding universe then?

Science can't show where the universe comes from because it is limited to our reality

Yes hence why god still has followers. No different from the ancient people who believed the stars where gods and the earth was flat.

Not really the place for this but if you are saying that human desire to follow their own desire is proof that all religion is false that is fallacious. In the pure sense all religion must be false because all groups of people define elements they can reconcile with so it's a compromise and differs from the original. When it comes to religious beliefs however some will be more correct than others.

Yes, hence religion is a culture, not a true fact of existance. No different from clothing styles from different nations.

You can't claim your own belief as the correct one and all others false as a matter of fact.

Christianity does, care to elaborate?

Also people speaking to God does not make them insane and it takes a lot more than hearing God talk back to get someone committed.

No one claimed that, people speaking to god is not the same as claiming to have met and been spoken TO by god. When I said "spoke" to god, I meant as in had a conversation, not a prayer. Belief in god actually provides people with false answers that put them at ease, provides hope and sanity. Hence why man created god. In the early evolution of mankind's intelligence they did not comprehend much of the natural world, and hence it was believed to be the "power of god". Just like how Zues god of lightning was said to create all storms, today we know this is utter rubbish. This concept applies to modern religions as well.

Psychiatric conditions are diagnosed more on behaviour and feeling than hearing voices.

Dont spout rubbish when you clearly are not medically trained.

Your claim that the bible is nothing more than a Harry Potter book is absurd and not grounded in reality

Why? whats the difference, because YOU say so? oh sorry I did not realise your word was absolute. I see two books, with writing on paper, both composed by humanity. Both are stories one of god the other of a wizzard named Harry Potter

Firstly it is an actual eye witness account delivered through generations as one

Yes from a generation that didnt even understand what the sun was. Didnt do that experiment in school to illustrate the distortion of information in class where a phrase was whispered by the teacher into one student and it had to be whispered across the class and the last student would say that phrase out loud? it was always wrong. Therefore tales told around fires ect are not credible at all, simply to distorted, because everyone likes to tell a good story.

There also eye accounts of alien spacecrafts, eye accounts of alien bodies entering area 51, bigfoot, the snowman, fairies, monsters in closests, orcs, goblins, zombies ect ... yes they all exist because eye accounts are totally credible huh. People exaggerate in their stories, because the truth is usually boring.

Here is a thought, How do you know Jesus didnt get drunk get into a fight with some romans and they beat the living Jesus out of him (lol) and then nailed him to a cross ? He couldve had been "dead" and woke up just like how people pronounced dead today wake up in a morgue. At the time considering the medical knowledge was non existant it would appear that he "rised from the dead". Walked around a few days then dropped dead in a corner from infection or blood loss. Did you even consider the reality? or did you just take that he went to heaven then returned as truth? Look at easter for example, you are told by the christians and the church he came back from the dead and walked around and then ascended to heaven (ascension day), but NO account tells you WHERE, WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE WAS WEARING, NOTHING. You think if someone came from the dead you would note this yes? so apparently he just chilled in white preached and then went home put the tv on and had a beer? The fact that the different sub sections of christianity cant even agree amoung themselves how many days he walked the earth is a joke.

Please go recover forensic evidence for the dead egyptian army at the bottom of the ocean, when moses washed them away after seperating the ocean. Did their bodies, armor, swords, chariots, horses also vapourise?

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Not at all, If this man is claimed to be god's son and its believed as truth, you think his phyiscal body wouldve been given a burial at least. I mean you can still find the graves of the popes of past. The farohs of egyptian empire are still resting in peace within their tombs ....

That does not imply that any change is possible

No It doesnt hence why there is cancer

unsupported hypothesis that life in a form capable of evolving merely formed by itself

Show me your solid evidence please? a book and your faith does not cut it as evidence so sorry.

fossil record that does not show the gradualistic progression from simple to advanced organisms

It does ... you assume the difference to be physical in nature, how naive. Its the DNA that dictates everything sir. The difference between you and a mouse is about 3% and the difference between you and a banana is give or take 40% in genetic terms. The more complex an organism is the more complex its DNA structures are, Early life had very simplistic DNA and peptides. Take a horseshoe crab for example, a living fossil per say. It has blue blood, because its copper based not iron based like ours. It does not have an immune system because its genetics are to "simple" to accomodate this

 

[Techne]

Though we of people of logic and reason (i.e scientists) should not be so defensive of our theories.

It is probably a misconception that scientists are "people of logic and reason". One only has to look at examples of scientists who believe empirical science is the only avenue of true or useful knowledge. It's called scientism and it is self-refuting. Another example would be the fact that scientists falsify data to get published and there is evidence that this is quite extensive. By doing this a scientist undermines science itself which is of course not something a person of reason and logic would do.
Here is a nice infographic on this issue from here.
E.g. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

This of course does not imply that science and the scientific endeavour is bad, in fact it is probably one of humanity's most important avenues of gaining knowledge. The point is that there is a misconception that scientists in general are "people of logic and reason". Many are but many are not too.

Then we are no better than the fanatical, they believe in words in books written by men of past, and we follow the mathematics of men written of past that has been built on to provide this so called "truth". If you are truely a man of science and intellect then you would realise the truth and that is 'There is no absolute truth'.

You are welcome to your opinion on this matter. I disagree however with the assertion and generalization about people of science and the intellect having to realize the truth that "there is no absolute truth". This appears to be an illogical and irrational stance that is self-refuting and actually something no rational and logical should accept it since it is self-refuting for obvious reasons.
Some people making this claim abuse Einstein's general and special relativity to try and support such notion, but this is confusing an empirical theory for metaphysical or ontological and/or epistemological truth.

The problem with these lies with the fact that eternity cannot exist, if its born/created it will die/break over time.

I see no logical reasons for eternity not to exist. There does not appear to be anything logically contradictory about the concept.

Now the next thing, the lack of power of god....snip

The truth of this assertion probably depends on your definition of God. Do you have one?

Finally by disproving religion as a whole I can start to disprove creationism and combine that to my proof of evolution to come up with a more factual scenario.

Evolution does not disprove creation. It's simply a category mistake to think empirical observation of change refutes the idea of creation.

However creationism claims a very disturbing fact. "God created everything and everyone". Lets explore what this means, if that holds true then that would mean god can create energy... however thats a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Three problems with this. Firstly, the problem of induction is a problem for people reverting to the "Laws of Physics" as some sort of universal absolute truth. This leads to the second problem for people who argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. "Laws of physics would qualify as an example of something that cannot be absolutely true.

Thirdly, for the Aristotelian, prime matter and energy can be argued to be analogous concepts so an Aristotelian (coincidentally the problem of induction falls away under a broad Aristotelian essentialism) can accept the conservation of energy without violating it and still accept creation.

-The creationist on the other hand, cannot PROVE their god exists.

I think there are good arguments using reason and logic that can in principle demonstrate the existence of God e.g. Aquinas' Five Ways.

Of course, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to be universally accepted. A radical skeptic that claims there is no absolute truth will of course not accept it along with any other mathematical roof. Point being, theists can resort to reason and logic if they want to prove the existence of God.

 

[buyeye]

theists can resort to reason and logic if they want to prove the existence of God.

But we don't have to because we have scripture, the rest of your post was good reading too.

 

[Techne]

But we don't have to because we have scripture, the rest of your post was good reading too.

Fair enough. Point being, if scripture is unavailable or some people don't find scripture alone to be compelling, one can still believe in God based on reason and logic.

Reason and logic leads to the preambles of faith as Aquinas would argue.

 

[CoolBug]

Wow you see it as logic to believe in a higher power?

I disagree even though hierarchy is probably a genetic trait for our species, and most other species.

I do believe that this is a vestigial behaviour and that we do not have to have such beliefs.

The only logical way imho is living your life to the fullest not giving such metaphysical thoughts any of your precious time or energy.

Unless you're writing a book and trying to be creative then all these gods like Poseidon, Zeus, Odin etc are all lots of fun.

For questions that we do not know we can humbly admit that we simply don't know instead of having a metaphysical entity responsible for the unknown.

It's natural to demand answers for the unknown but to make up answers imho is naive, arrogant and the easy way out, the lazy way.

Which I believe is why skepticism is such a driving force for science to seek out answers that we don't know.

Just take a look at all work done on the LHC.

 

[RiaX]

I disagree however with the assertion and generalization about people of science and the intellect having to realize the truth that "there is no absolute truth

Sigh, clearly some people dont understand what is meant by "the absolute truth" with regards to physics, its a common saying. See in physics there are laws and the base idea of these laws will not change, however the detail can change. In other words though the law is fact, that doesnt mean it has reached the end stage of the idea. Just like how Einstein added to Newton's law of gravity and Newton's model of space. Was Newton wrong? no he was not but his work was not complete thus even considered fact for MANY MANY years it was not absolute.

Next thing, you dont have to be a researcher or in a field with a degree to be a scientist. For example if you interested in the knowing how the natural world works (i.e physics) even if you study on your own, develop your own ideas that would make you a scientist. I have written and published 3 journal articles thus far and 2013 I will start the 4th, though does that make me more of a scientist than anyone else debating science? no it does not.

I see no logical reasons for eternity not to exist. There does not appear to be anything logically contradictory about the concept.

If it has a begining it has an end, even the universe itself is not eternal.

The truth of this assertion probably depends on your definition of God. Do you have one?

Hmmmmm, I have to get back to you on this one need to do something thinking with a cigar and whiskey.

Evolution does not disprove creation

It does, it disproves the entire theory of life. Refer to Carl Sagan's cosmos for a very nice explaination, out dated a bit but the fundamentals of the theory of evolution is there. When we say evolution in a topic like this we refer to the theory of evolution, which is driven by evolutionary force (which the creationist convieniently call adaptation). Dont take things out of context.

problem of induction is a problem for people reverting to the "Laws of Physics" as some sort of universal absolute truth. This leads to the second problem for people who argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. "Laws of physics would qualify as an example of something that cannot be absolutely true.

explained above you didnt understand the phrase and took it in its most literate sense. In simple terms, I can rewrite all the mathematics of Newton's law of gravity but no matter what I do to it the law doesnt change. Its complexity can but the basis still stands. Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses, that fact will never change. Same applies to the second law of thermodynamics.

good arguments using reason and logic that can in principle demonstrate the existence of God e.g. Aquinas' Five Ways.

Sorry arguments alone is not enough to form fact. Invalid, this isnt poetry, its physics. You claim the modern model of the world with regards to the orgins of life is incorrect. Please show me how with physical evidence or even an experiment, evidence not distorted or decayed by the sands of time.

I have supported every statement that I claim as fact with HARD, physical evidence that have been frozen in time, and be repeatsed in a laboratory. Those opposing me are simply being technical to strip away at the facts, mere slander at best. Also in a thread like this I should not have to teach people how to read, or maybe I have very bad typing im not sure. Though dont combine my ideals with presented facts. My little story of Jesus getting in a fight is not fact its a 'what if?' BUT my presentation of evolution i.e the a change in a life form to enable a high survival rate in its environment, was presented using bacteria. That is fact, i've seen the mechanism of evolution under a microscope with my own two eyes. How many of you here HAVE actually conducted experiments beyond school?

 

[Swa]

Definitions are the foundation of common language and scientific enquiry.

Now that I have defined complexity, everyone on this thread knows exactly what I mean when I talk about it and we are better able to discuss it's relationship, if any, with entropy.

Don't whine because you've failed to come up with a definition which is consistent and useful.

It's not whining. Lol I'm saying that definitions by themself are useless. It's experiment and observation that determines how they relate to the world. You claimed your definition is unrelated to thermodynamics which is contrary to the facts.

There are any number of natural processes which create complexity, some which require agency, some which don't.

Not the complexity required for life.

Wow you see it as logic to believe in a higher power?

I disagree even though hierarchy is probably a genetic trait for our species, and most other species.

I do believe that this is a vestigial behaviour and that we do not have to have such beliefs.

The only logical way imho is living your life to the fullest not giving such metaphysical thoughts any of your precious time or energy.

Unless you're writing a book and trying to be creative then all these gods like Poseidon, Zeus, Odin etc are all lots of fun.

For questions that we do not know we can humbly admit that we simply don't know instead of having a metaphysical entity responsible for the unknown.

It's natural to demand answers for the unknown but to make up answers imho is naive, arrogant and the easy way out, the lazy way.

Which I believe is why skepticism is such a driving force for science to seek out answers that we don't know.

Just take a look at all work done on the LHC.

You see it as logic and reason to believe that there isn't a higher power? Of course you don't need to have such believes but to claim they are illogical is itself stretching logic and reason. On questions that we do not know you can just as humbly admit that you simply don't know instead of claiming that there can't be a higher power. Your view that all other views except your own are irrational actually puts you in the far extreme of irrational.

 

[Swa]

Yoh, all subjective nonsense. You have tried to counter solid evidence with a set of fancy articulated phrases. Never have I come across such a pathetic counter arguement :wtf: , ok time to tear apart this nonsense.

Evolution is subjective as shown by solid evidence but let's take it apart to see where it leads.

Yes thats like saying carbon atoms dont prove the existance of graphite and diamonds. You assume yourself to be a single living thing because you function with a singular conscious. You are made like so:

cells ---> tissue ----> organs ----> Complex organism.

See a change at the cellular level is sufficient to change the entire chain, especially if that cellular change occurs on the DNA of reproductive cells. You assume it cant be true for complex beings becuase you cant think past your own life span. /snip

That is a strawman. Nobody is arguing the existence of graphite because firstly it can be shown to exist and secondly the known process that makes it is largely irrelevant to that. Evolution however has not been shown as a plausible process for the complexity of life. Indeed from our understanding of life we know this complexity only comes from life. You're the one not thinking past your own lifespan and simply assume what happens today must have been the natural procession of life from the start.

The scientific definition of evoultion is: "is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Now at least we have a definition so evolution isn't just change.

Using a synonym for evolution is not going to disprove it. You cant sectionalise things cause you feel like it.

Wot? Nobody is using a synonym for evolution. You're assuming that evolution happens but can only show adaptation to occur. The point remains that evolution is then still unproven.

Because LIFE has EVOLVED to live on earth, not to prove your theories. The earth's conditions since life has not changed drastically. Water oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere with 9.8m/s^2 gravity and acceptable temperatures. Change the environment and the life will change by evolving, antibiotic resistance shows this, in humans race shows this. People living in hotter more sunlight intense regions are darker

And all that shows is adaptation. The fossil record counts against your theory. There is no succession of one organism changing to become another different organism and only a huge number of gaps there showing it likely never happened.

Exstrapolating results to form a theory, quoting parts of a phrase to change its meaning. Very sad grasping for straws now are we? but the same can be said for you, "i dont know where earth came from" ,"god made it", "EPIC DIE HARD TRUTH". Where is your evidence of god show me - oh wait there isnt any as you say

No change in meaning here. There isn't any evidence for the primordial soup. I don't care if you see evidence for God or not. I only care that you don't hold up theories to be the truth.

hence it was the workings of god. The sun = Ra /Helios. Lightning work of zues, tides for neptune/posiden, mars venus jupiter all gods in ancient times. Your modern religions are no different.

If you look through history you'll see no religion is actually modern. They just evolve.

same way you claim it does

I believe it does. That's different from making a claim that it can't possibly exist.

care to explain our expanding universe then?

Can be explained in a number of ways.

Yes, hence religion is a culture, not a true fact of existance. No different from clothing styles from different nations.

Exactly why you shouldn't be claiming which ones are true and which ones not as fact.

Christianity does, care to elaborate?

As fact or faith?

No one claimed that, people speaking to god is not the same as claiming to have met and been spoken TO by god. When I said "spoke" to god, I meant as in had a conversation, not a prayer. Belief in god actually provides people with false answers that put them at ease, provides hope and sanity. /snip

You were somewhat ambiguous. You can claim what you want but drawing a conclusion that there's a greater power is different from actually meeting that power. None of your "scientific" explanations can show the latter to not be the case. Your own argument of providing hope and sanity works just as easily against your own belief.

Dont spout rubbish when you clearly are not medically trained.

Ask someone who is. They'll tell you there are many requirements that have to be met to declare someone insane.

Why? whats the difference, because YOU say so? oh sorry I did not realise your word was absolute. I see two books, with writing on paper, both composed by humanity. Both are stories one of god the other of a wizzard named Harry Potter

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not claim that you should believe anything because I say so. The bible actually has a lot of history. It wasn't just picked up by somebody and assumed to be the truth. To equate it to a Harry Potter book is an absurd strawman. But I don't care what you believe or not.

Yes from a generation that didnt even understand what the sun was. Didnt do that experiment in school to illustrate the distortion of information in class where a phrase was whispered by the teacher into one student and it had to be whispered across the class and the last student would say that phrase out loud? it was always wrong. Therefore tales told around fires ect are not credible at all, simply to distorted, because everyone likes to tell a good story.

Not having a complete understanding of something does not imply that people will be wrong on everything. You'd like to assume that everyone from that time must have been illiterate. We know that not to have been the case and remarkably multiple sources confirm each other pretty closely and contrary to your telephone experiment.

Here is a thought, How do you know Jesus didnt get drunk get into a fight with some romans and they beat the living Jesus out of him (lol) and then nailed him to a cross ? He couldve had been "dead" and woke up just like how people pronounced dead today wake up in a morgue. At the time considering the medical knowledge was non existant it would appear that he "rised from the dead". Walked around a few days then dropped dead in a corner from infection or blood loss. Did you even consider the reality? or did you just take that he went to heaven then returned as truth? Look at easter for example, you are told by the christians and the church he came back from the dead and walked around and then ascended to heaven (ascension day), but NO account tells you WHERE, WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE WAS WEARING, NOTHING. You think if someone came from the dead you would note this yes? so apparently he just chilled in white preached and then went home put the tv on and had a beer? The fact that the different sub sections of christianity cant even agree amoung themselves how many days he walked the earth is a joke.

How do you know your version is the case? The fact is that no historic event can be confirmed with certainty but that does not mean they can just be discounted. If someone was resurrected from the dead I think the last thing a person would pay attention to is their clothes. I don't know what you mean by there being no accounts. The bible gives the account of the ascension 40 days after the resurrection from the Mount of Olives (Olivet). It says what He did while on earth. If you're going to nitpick over minor details heck your own theory doesn't have agreement over any details.

Please go recover forensic evidence for the dead egyptian army at the bottom of the ocean, when moses washed them away after seperating the ocean. Did their bodies, armor, swords, chariots, horses also vapourise?

Forensic evidence from something that happened 4,000 years ago when even modern crimes a few days old evidence can disappear pretty quickly? You must be joking and your criteria indicates you're looking for something unrealistic.

Not at all, If this man is claimed to be god's son and its believed as truth, you think his phyiscal body wouldve been given a burial at least. I mean you can still find the graves of the popes of past. The farohs of egyptian empire are still resting in peace within their tombs ....

I really don't know if I should take you seriously. His physical body ascended to heaven.

Show me your solid evidence please? a book and your faith does not cut it as evidence so sorry.

You want me to show you solid evidence but you don't have any of your own?

It does ... you assume the difference to be physical in nature, how naive. /snip

Don't try to avert attention. If everything has a common ancestor there are physical differences. Yet no succession of changes or even a near approximation of it can be shown.

 

[alloytoo]

It's not whining. Lol I'm saying that definitions by themself are useless.

Nope, you're whining that my definition doesn't suit you. Nothing more.

You claimed your definition is unrelated to thermodynamics which is contrary to the facts.

But you haven't actual presented any facts.

Fact is the second law of Thermodynamics says nothing about measuring information which is what my definition of complexity is all about.

Not the complexity required for life.

That would appear to be contrary to the fact of your own existence.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Please move this **** to PD.

 

[Techne]

Sigh, clearly some people dont understand what is meant by "the absolute truth" with regards to physics, its a common saying. See in physics there are laws and the base idea of these laws will not change, however the detail can change. In other words though the law is fact, that doesnt mean it has reached the end stage of the idea. Just like how Einstein added to Newton's law of gravity and Newton's model of space. Was Newton wrong? no he was not but his work was not complete thus even considered fact for MANY MANY years it was not absolute.

To be fair, I understood your sentence for what it was. Thanks for the clarification. I agree then, physics is incomplete or has not uncovered all or every truth and I think we can both agree this does not imply that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Next thing, you dont have to be a researcher or in a field with a degree to be a scientist. For example if you interested in the knowing how the natural world works (i.e physics) even if you study on your own, develop your own ideas that would make you a scientist. I have written and published 3 journal articles thus far and 2013 I will start the 4th, though does that make me more of a scientist than anyone else debating science? no it does not.

I fully agree. Congrats on the peer-reviewed articles, it's not easy prepping articles. What kind of research are you busy with?

If it has a begining it has an end, even the universe itself is not eternal.

It does not logically follow that something that begins to exist necessarily will stop or cease to exist. Same goes for something has existed for eternity.

It does, it disproves the entire theory of life. Refer to Carl Sagan's cosmos for a very nice explaination, out dated a bit but the fundamentals of the theory of evolution is there. When we say evolution in a topic like this we refer to the theory of evolution, which is driven by evolutionary force (which the creationist convieniently call adaptation). Dont take things out of context.

The theory of evolution can't prove or disprove creation or a Creator. Creation is a logical and ontological issue, not an issue that is dealt with by empirical science.

explained above you didnt understand the phrase and took it in its most literate sense. In simple terms, I can rewrite all the mathematics of Newton's law of gravity but no matter what I do to it the law doesnt change. Its complexity can but the basis still stands. Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses, that fact will never change. Same applies to the second law of thermodynamics.

You are still stuck with the problem of induction or trying to make universal laws from particular observations. One way to solve this is to revert to Aristotelian essentialism. How would you approach the problem though?

Sorry arguments alone is not enough to form fact.

Mathematical argument for proofs appear to pretty valid to me even though many cannot be empirically verified. Same with logical and philosophical argument used to demonstrate a metaphysical principle.

Invalid, this isnt poetry, its physics. You claim the modern model of the world with regards to the orgins of life is incorrect. Please show me how with physical evidence or even an experiment, evidence not distorted or decayed by the sands of time.

None of the models of abiogenesis at present can provide a good explanation for the emergence of the first life forms. Nothing controversial about this really. There are good models, I prefer the metabolome first models that provided the precursors for the RNA world. Point being, abiogenesis is again, irrelevant to whether creation is true or false.

I have supported every statement that I claim as fact with HARD, physical evidence that have been frozen in time, and be repeatsed in a laboratory. Those opposing me are simply being technical to strip away at the facts, mere slander at best. Also in a thread like this I should not have to teach people how to read, or maybe I have very bad typing im not sure. Though dont combine my ideals with presented facts. My little story of Jesus getting in a fight is not fact its a 'what if?' BUT my presentation of evolution i.e the a change in a life form to enable a high survival rate in its environment, was presented using bacteria. That is fact, i've seen the mechanism of evolution under a microscope with my own two eyes. How many of you here HAVE actually conducted experiments beyond school?

Biological evolution is just the result fitness differences and says nothing about creation being tue or false. Your well presented arguments for biological evolution won't change this.

 

[Swa]

Nope, you're whining that my definition doesn't suit you. Nothing more.




But you haven't actual presented any facts.

Fact is the second law of Thermodynamics says nothing about measuring information which is what my definition of complexity is all about.

Read the wiki article then. Maybe then you'll understand it.

That would appear to be contrary to the fact of your own existence.

I exist. Fact. Doesn't say how I got here.

 

[RiaX]

Nobody is arguing the existence of graphite because firstly it can be shown to exist

ever heard of an analogy? sigh since when you take something like this literal its beyond me.

Evolution however has not been shown as a plausible

It has, reference this with peer reviwed data please and physical evidence refuting evolution. No more subjective talk.

a definition so evolution isn't just change.

Did you pass high school english? :wtf: because you lacking some comprehensive skills.

Nobody is using a synonym for evolution. You're assuming that evolution happens but can only show adaptation to occur

Evolution is defined as ANY change, for the better or worse, expressed in the DNA. What is adaptation? its a change in a living organism for the better. How these adaptations ocur? VIA THE GENES IN THE DNA STRUCTURE thereby expressing a change in the lifeform. End of story.

Perhaps I shall refine my graphite diamond analogy. By saying adaption is not an evolutionary process is like saying graphite and diamond are not the same carbon atoms (dont be a smartass and claim isotopes here because if you do then you dont understand a thing and need to go back to school).

The fossil record counts against your theory. There is no succession of one organism changing to become another different organism and only a huge number of gaps there showing it likely never happened.

:wtf:... you expect evidence over millions of years old to sit in a nicely preserved book ? oh wait you a creationist you do... damn. Care to disprove our homonid fossils ? i.e Lucy

There isn't any evidence for the primordial soup. I don't care if you see evidence for God or not. I only care that you don't hold up theories to be the truth.

So you claim my theory with more evidence is fake and you say i must not claim it as the truth? and yet I dont see the evidence of god (what evidence show me), YET you are as arrogant to claim it is true? same sentiment can be claimed on this nothing but mere witchcraft and wizzardry..... naive

Its this form of ignorance that has allowed religion to be the most destructive force known to man. Religion has caused the most bloodshed in history and still does it today, now you can see why.

If you look through history you'll see no religion is actually modern.

Whats the difference between a cult and a religion?

secondly, when I say modern religions its not hard to grasp the meaning of that phrase. It doesnt mean a religion formed recently, it means a religion still alive today. For example Islam and christianity are religions of today's modern era, while those extinct are considered to be ancient.

Ask someone who is. They'll tell you there are many requirements that have to be met to declare someone insane.

I am medically trained sir, I was head of department in a specalist psychiatric hospital. Therefore I say again dont sprout nonsense.

The bible actually has a lot of history. It wasn't just picked up by somebody and assumed to be the truth.

really? where is the original cross jesus was crucified on? show me the spear of destiny ? show me where is noah's arc its a boat that was GRAND in scale, if we can still find colonial shipwrecks, im sure noah's boat should be there.

Can be explained in a number of ways.

uh ? I know this but im responding to your statement, so explain it in terms of your:

change can not exist because anything that changes requires an initial state and ultimate start so it must be an illusion

You said change cannot exist not me. Wait? but you say adaptation is real ?!? :wtf: uhm... elaborate please

As fact or faith?

Both, save me from eternal damnation from your tyrant of a god

You'd like to assume that everyone from that time must have been illiterate

They were lol

remarkably multiple sources confirm each other pretty closely and contrary to your telephone experiment.

Source them, or better yet Im a busy person since you have claimed to study them give me the synopsis pelase. No more eye accounts of vampire,witches and wizzards. Becareful what you say is historically accurate, if you claimed someone to exist in history you must have proof beyond writings. Statues, writings, and a body/grave, again I give you the examples of the egyptian farohs, thats how I know they existed. Family tree records, bloodline something?

Where is Jesus' mother buried btw? Who was her parents?. These arent unknown people like you or me that would fade into time, these are iconic people like the kings of past, its hard to believe they would've NOT been remembered through time.

How do you know your version is the case?

I dont, its called theorising simple concept really hence why i began paragraph with "Here's a thought". Do you believe vampires exist btw?

The bible gives the account of the ascension 40 days after the resurrection from the Mount of Olives (Olivet). It says what He did while on earth. If you're going to nitpick over minor details heck your own theory doesn't have agreement over any details.

Funny you creationists nit pick all the time with "left handed" proteins. Then talk about macro and micro evolutions, saying basically "it change but naaah thats not evolution" .... now I will show you IN THE EXACT moronic method you use to disprove evolution. I will focus on disproving you and not proving myself, though evolution is proven, the theory of evolution with regards to the orgins of life is yet to be proven because its missing two links, where the universe came from and the location of primordial soup. Soon God will be known to exist as the last digit of Pi, as god only is good for explaining what science has not discovered yet. A coward that lurks in the shroud of ignorance.

Anyways what about those other bibles that claim 56 days? there are many bibles sir each one claims a different set of days, you cant claim your bible is correct because its more mainstream. If i came to you and said my uncle died and came back then ascended you would you believe me? lol no, so how is jesus any different.

Please provide evidence prior 5th century as well while we at it. I however can provide evidence from millions of years ago. On that note, who worshiped god when there were only dinosaurs? what happens to souls of lions? are you going to be so arrogant to claim your all merciful God does not care for animals which he supposidly created. Bet the bible says nothing about dogs anyways...

Forensic evidence from something that happened 4,000 years ago when even modern crimes a few days old evidence can disappear pretty quickly? You must be joking and your criteria indicates you're looking for something unrealistic.

Yet you ask for evidence from over 200 million years ago, strange you can ask but I cannot? and its only a mere 4000 years, come on make a plan.

Futhermore the egyptian farohs and their cities are still there today and they existed more or less at the same time. Metal doesnt degrade in 4000 years sir, you telling me not so much AS ONE SWORD can be found? yet its said he washed away AN ENTIRE army.

Why is it unrealistic?

I really don't know if I should take you seriously. His physical body ascended to heaven.

Most rubbish i've ever read. SO heaven takes physical objects hmmm, the sky opened up and took his body? that would mean heaven is physical in nature if it can support matter, that means it can be found, seen or even be caught emitting energy. So where is it then?

How did his physical body go UP? elevator? golden staircase? claw machine ? did he fly?what? sounds more like a convience to me.

Please answer these questions I really like to know

You want me to show you solid evidence but you don't have any of your own?

huh? yes self replicating celllular membranes derived from basic animo acids and fatty acids is totally not substantial, nor is DNA modification substantial. Nor is watching the process of resistance in bacteria using nuclear stained dyes on peptides substantial... but of course

BUT A MAN SAID TO ASCEND TO HEAVEN..... totally is. WOW. Again present your evidence, I can take you to my labs and show you these things in real time, what you got? a picture ?

If everything has a common ancestor there are physical differences.

Its does have a common ancestor its called DNA. Provide me one form of life that is not dictated by this molecule? Do you even know how the theory of evolutions goes? you think your complexity is due to your consciousness?

LOL I can take a neuron and grow it on a CPU and it will function if it has a biological fuel for the neurons. Medical testing for transplating robotics in patients, neurons have shown integrate with electronics. They can now replace your eyesight if you blind, however its extremely experimental and expensive but it has been done.

Life is DNA as DNA is the molecule of life, everything you are is defined by this molecule NOT by thought. Thats your common ancestor for life. I can provide ancestors for crocadiles, dogs, monkeys, humans but ultimately for life its DNA.

 

[alloytoo]

Read the wiki article then. Maybe then you'll understand it.

I understand entropy perfectly, it neither applies here, nor is it intrinsically related to my definition of complexity.

I exist. Fact. Doesn't say how I got here.

Your mommy and daddy loved each other very much, and then your daddy and mommy kissed which summoned the stork.

 

[RiaX]

To be fair, I understood your sentence for what it was. Thanks for the clarification. I agree then, physics is incomplete or has not uncovered all or every truth and I think we can both agree this does not imply that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

I fully agree. Congrats on the peer-reviewed articles, it's not easy prepping articles. What kind of research are you busy with?

Yoh, cant keep up with both of you >.< ... Im trying to do masters in pharmaceutics next year. Ive published animal testing data on traditional medicine versus western medicine to see if there is any viability in it. Ive done the use bioisoflavaones in CNS disorders and Ive done supportive research on MDR-TB with regards to the tuberculostatic drug ehtionamide and its thyroid toxic effects.

I tend to create a new dermatological preparation for autoimmune diseases next year.

Now I will respond to the rest of the post another time.

Oh yes about the laws, they are not debatable, you can add to them, but there is nothing philosophical about them. If we were to add for example and say "our law of gravity would not hold in a parallel universe" , now we amalgamate what we know and we theorise rationally and practically prove, HOWEVER parallel universes per say has not been proven therefore you cannot TOUCH the law of gravity with this information. In the end it boils down to degree of information you present. Primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

BTW @ Swa WTH does entropy got to do with evolution? are you trying to imply that basic amino acids would prefer to stay that way because of entropy ?!?

 

[rwenzori]

Oh yes about the laws, they are not debatable, you can add to them, but there is nothing philosophical about them.

To quite an extent there is. One needs to define and agree the term "law", but if you claim that a scientific law or "law of nature" is universally applicable in all circumstances, you overreach yourself. Which apply in, for some examples, black holes, the first very-small-unit-of-time of ze beeg bang, temperatures pretty close to absolute zero, and the swamps on Rwenzori-447 which you have never been to - weird stuff happens there. The last is the problem of induction Techne is on about I suppose.

The best you can get for a "law" is a statement of an observed statistical regularity over a certain area of the known universe over a certain time ( woteva time may be LOL! ).

To claim that the universe had a beginning is a bit much too. Maybe it is cyclic. Maybe time gets so loooooong and slow as you go back that the universe is infinitely old. ( depending on your point of view of course LOL ). I don't know - I am not a scientist. But I'd wager scientific "knowledge" in that regard is somewhat speculative.

Not that I am trying to fight you - I appreciate someone making the effort to counter all the simplistic religious claptrap that has unfortunately invaded the Science section. But you'll find the effort pointless I reckon.

 

[rwenzori]

The theory of evolution can't prove or disprove creation or a Creator. Creation is a logical and ontological issue, not an issue that is dealt with by empirical science.

Maybe not evolution, but surely science? Creation of something physical ( ie: not some airy-fairy spiritual thingy "from another dimension" that by definition is not physical ) is surely able to be investigated by science. In fact science already does such - those particles coming in and out of existence - lovely stuff! Logic don't create physical stuff, and to understand ontology you'd better start with understanding language.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Should we ask the mods to create a new section called "Supernatural Sciences"?

 

[rwenzori]

Should we ask the mods to create a new section called "Supernatural Sciences"?

Good plan! "Creationism and Supernatural Science".

 

[RiaX]

To quite an extent there is. One needs to define and agree the term "law", but if you claim that a scientific law or "law of nature" is universally applicable in all circumstances, you overreach yourself. Which apply in, for some examples, black holes, the first very-small-unit-of-time of ze beeg bang, temperatures pretty close to absolute zero, and the swamps on Rwenzori-447 which you have never been to - weird stuff happens there. The last is the problem of induction Techne is on about I suppose.

The best you can get for a "law" is a statement of an observed statistical regularity over a certain area of the known universe over a certain time ( woteva time may be LOL! ).

To claim that the universe had a beginning is a bit much too. Maybe it is cyclic. Maybe time gets so loooooong and slow as you go back that the universe is infinitely old. ( depending on your point of view of course LOL ). I don't know - I am not a scientist. But I'd wager scientific "knowledge" in that regard is somewhat speculative.

Not that I am trying to fight you - I appreciate someone making the effort to counter all the simplistic religious claptrap that has unfortunately invaded the Science section. But you'll find the effort pointless I reckon.

Indeed however there are problems with what you saying here. Firstly Nothing of blackholes is LAW. Ask every person qualified in the field of astrophysics and they will tell you this. The understanding of blackholes is non-esxistant, the knowledge of physics STOPS inside one. Hence its called a singualrity.

Be very careful when quoting newer papers and theories as LAW. Something can only be a law in physics if it cannot be refuted AT ALL. In other words:

- Its proven mathematically in terms of theory
- Its proven practically in terms of the laboratory as an isolated event
- Its observed practically in terms of reality
- Its proven countless times over and over and over

The theory of evolution is not LAW or fact beside its missing information, information that the churches around the world pray on. Yet they fail to realise they devote their lives like slaves to a book written on paper, they live their lives in hope for reward after death how sad. In my field of work, god has NO POWER. When I went to consult with the speciailist doctors of ICU and nICU and you see the families all of them with each respective ideals of each religion praying hard for the god they worship to provide salvation for their new born babies ect... Its repaid with a plea upon deafs ears. Then they ignorantly claim its god's will.
When those patients survive, because 5 doctors sat in theatre operation for 17 hours, the fact that they made it alive because some medical company sold them high quality tools, some pharmaceutical company bothered to spend 200 billion pounds worth of research to design a single molecule, that some pharmacist in the hospital didnt botch up making up the drugs, getting the right anaesthetic, ensuring that the doctor's dosing is PRECISE, working out the reversal correctly. That the nurses observed them properly in resus .... then they come conscious and go "thank god" . Well there were about 200 people that saved your life, by their skill and expertise NOT god.

Enough ranting there back to what i was saying rofl

Like gravity is a law, you cannot say it exists you cant say its wrong, Thermodynamics is a law, newton's laws of motion are laws. They cannot be refuted, but as a scientist you must remember there is no "absolute truth" in other words the minor details may be added/removed or extended into these laws. Like einstein's addition to newton's law of gravity.

Now even things that are mathetically solid are not laws. For example absolute zero is this concept. However its considered fact, reason being mathematically its proven that you cant go lower than 0K, because the mathematics becomes negative and undefined. We have also never seen anything colder than this, not even deepest darkest voids of space reach 0K. The one of coldest substances known to man is solid heluim which sit at about 1k. Even so this its not LAW in physics because you have not met the basic conditions to be considered law, but its so solid in evidence that it IS fact , confusing huh.

Most people THINK they understand what is meant by these terms because they take it for granted never stop to realise the true meanings. The best way to show this is as Professor Brain Cox (astrophysicist in the UK) stated "If you can explain to me how to defeat gravity from falling, then you understand gravity"