 |
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
Is this all new to you ? Are you all alone on that mountain, perhaps?
:D
·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You are good with the slick comments huh?
Anyway, "Nothing" is missing from evolution but a beginning? Does that make sense to you? OR wait you use a another terminology for the steps BEFORE evolution so that makes your theory right, sorry missed that point.
So what or who created the first living cell... or are you not bothered with that?
To quote you Cred "And if people like Nohelp4u want to know more about the origin of the universe, why don't they ask for that?"
I am asking so lay off the slick comments...
On the last board that Cred was on, he stated that there was a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution - I kept asking him to post it, but he never did.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain_man
We also got into the first cell question, and he told us that the first cell came from pond scum (which in itself living cells). When asked where the pond scum came from, he had no answer.
The simplest living cell is far more complex than any chemical plant that man has ever built, and each mechanism and process in the cell is essential for it to exist. How this complex organism came to be, how the first cell came to be is absolutely essential.
You all know that god can still exist with evolution, right? In fact if I did believe in god evolution would make more sense. Everything that people have attributed to god so far has had a natural explainable non-super natural explanation. If your god is truly the ultimate designer would he not be able to follow a continuity of design and keep with the same pattern of a non-super natural explanation of everything. It seems to me as if you are limiting the power of your own god. People have misunderstood the bible before like when they thought the bible said the world was flat. How can you be so sure that's not happening now after all only your god is perfect, right?
When I was an evolutionist, I studied the topic from both a scientific and scriptural perspective, and came to the rather shocking conclusion that evolution matched up to neither. To try to resolve that problem, I moved to theistic evolution, which is what you describe, and I found that to be a less feasible theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
So, no, one can not reconcile scripture with evolution. Scripture does agree with the scientific evidence, though.
On the last board that Tj3 was on (as Toms777), he stated that he had objective supporting proof for God's existence. I kept asking him to post it, but he never did. The best he could do was a list of subjective claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of course if I really would have claimed that, would I have used the derogatory creationists' term "pond scum".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No of course ! Shows you that you simply can't trust Tom Smith...
A single cell can indeed be more complex than a chemical plant. But the original first cell did not have to be that complex at all. Nature had 3.500.000.000 years to experiment to come from that first simple cell to today's complex version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In another topic I described how Japanses scientists are struggling to use an artificial DNA version to store data. But in all such cases does our problems in knowledge , technology, and/or understanding means that a supra-natural entity created that? No of course ! That is just shifting our ignorance one step up. Tj3 is very good in doing that... But not good enough...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
·
John, I posted it dozens of times, and you kept saying that you could not see it. It seemed to me that your eyes had selective filtering on your eyes.. Other people saw it just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Ah, denial of the facts. Some folk see it as the best alternative to a sound rebuttal if you don't have a sound rebuttal! Something like denying that you could see posts put on the board dozens of times.Quote:
Of course if I really would have claimed that, would I have used the derogatory creationists' term "pond scum".
No of course ! Shows you that you simply can't trust Tom Smith...
Then provide us with the sequence of events - what did that first cell look like and how did it evolve into the complexity that we have today. That would be far more effective that your denials.Quote:
A single cell can indeed be more complex than a chemical plant. But the original first cell did not have to be that complex at all. Nature had 3.500.000.000 years to experiment to come from that first simple cell to today's complex version.
I am not going into that again : all you posted was a long list of SUBJECTIVE supported evidence. Not of OBJECTIVE supportied evidence, which you promissed, but never posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But Tom : why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you post that list once more? All you do here every time is evade doing just that by stating that you posted it already so many times.
You lie about that, and you know that you do. And every time you do, I can show everyone that you just do that, because you refuse to post that list... Suits me fine...
:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D
·
Ah, I believe that this is the first time that you actually admit that something was posted. Now if you had only done that on the prior board, we could have discussed why you felt that it was not adequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
First of all, there is no "list". Second, if I saw you exhibit an interest in examining the relative merits of the issue, I might do so, but since I see no different attitude here than I saw on there, I don't see why we should simply migrate the discussion that we had on there to here, which simply waste time and space. It is not worth my effort to waste large amounts of my valuable time on someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the facts.Quote:
But Tom : why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you post that list once more? All you do here every time is evade doing just that by stating that you posted it already so many times.
I keep telling you, there is no list. I am not sure where this so called list comes from. Maybe you are getting something mixed up.Quote:
You lie about that, and you know that you do. And every time you do, I can show everyone that you just do that, because you refuse to post that list .
But as for your false accusation, I kept a large number of post from those days, and I may yet have some of the posts where you argued pond scum and suddenly stopped when asked where it came from.
What a scientific cop out :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
We really don't know how something as complex as a single cell started... so we,. ah,. ahem,. oh,. will just start with a single cell :p
Abiogenesis - exactly what scientific peer reviewed article demonstrates, that with carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms; and no cloning, and no DNA or RNA template; can a viable single cell that can reproduce itself be manufactured? :confused:
Here is a sample of the complexity of a single cell:
The role of microtubule movement in bidirectional organelle transport — PNAS
Go ahead, look it up... it is scientific... I swear, there is no mention of God or religion, nor evolution for that matter,. but read it for yourself, the amazing complexity of a single cell is a wonder to behold. :D
You all can complain on the internet as much as you want about evolution. Really all you are doing is telling young educated people that your religion is a myth and ignores evidence. Something that their grandparents once believe in to ward off evil spirits but has no meaning in our modern age. LIke all religions that have come before, yours has doomed itself to failure.
Quite the contrary. As a person with a scientific background, I am amazed at how many people ignore the evidence and remain tied to evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
And you saying you have a scientific background means nothing on the internet except to try to falsely give weight to your posts.
What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.
I could say I have a PHD in biology from MIT, I could even go as far as to say my name is Stephanie Capaldi who if you look you find that she currently teaches there, but if my content doesn't back it up, I just sound stupid. There are lots of ways that creation could be presented as a scientific theory and if any of them were valid they would be peer reviewed theories. Almost everything that is post from creationist is meant to confuse the public who barely has any scientific knowledge and all of it is considered drivel by anyone who has actually studied.
Your religion has come to an evolutionary dead end so to speak on this issue.
Tj3's profile says he is an electrical engineer, which means he most likely knows about as much about evolutionary biology as I know about tropospheric ducting.
Among practicing biologists, evolution is universally accepted. But it's common for small numbers of scientists outside of biology to use their status as scientists to criticize evolution even though they have no special insight into biology generally or evolution specifically. It would make as much sense for a biologist to critique modern physics on the grounds that "I'm a scientist." When a non biologist says "There's no evidence for evolution," it's like hearing someone say, "There's no evidence that electricity exists."
Evolution doesn't pretend to explain where the first life came from. The first cells could have evolved from non living molecules--there's ample evidence for that--or it might have come from space. Nobody can be sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But there's plenty evidence for evolution itself --the evolution of millions of complex species from simpler forebears--in other words, bacteria, then photosynthetic bacteria, then eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and other "organelles" like our cells), yeast cells, plants, simple one-celled "animals" (protists), and animals of every kind. It's all laid out in the fossil record like a story book and the same story is confirmed by genetic studies. You can look up the specific evidence in any introductory biology textbook, so there's no need for people to list it here over and over. I've summarized the evidence at length on this forum, so you can look that up too.
But as I've asked Sassy, the real question is not what evidence is there, but what evidence would you accept? Biologists are obviously satisfied with the evidence. You are not. But if you are open to the idea that an idea can be supported or disproved by evidence--in other words to scientific discourse--then you should be able to say what evidence would support evolution if that evidence existed. That is, what evidence do you think would support the idea of common descent--organisms being all related to one another? Once people here know what evidence you'd accept, they can decide if it exists or not, or discuss whether your requirements are reasonable. But if you just reject all evidence out of hand, there's no real discussion of anything.
So what would be some evidence for all organisms being related? (I'm assuming you don't think it exists. But I'm just asking what it would have to look like if it did.)
It's an interesting fact that engineers are a large proportion (majority, I think) of scientifically qualified people who deny evolution and believe in intelligent design... Maybe because they design things all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That argument seems invalid for electronic engineers : just count me out !Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
:D
·
Don't worry, I said nothing about you, just about the majority of scientifically qualified people who believe in intelligent design :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Originally Posted by Credendovidis :Quote:
Not at all. There is "NOTHING" missing from evolution (if you mean with "nothing" abiogenesis). Evolution starts with the first living cell.
So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.
:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D
·
Of course, the theory of gravitation explains how gravity interacts, but does not explain how matter generates this force. Is gravity unacceptable too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I guess until you see that there are things in life (many) that Can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you would never be able to have enough faith to believe in a God that created the world and you and I. There are so many things that surround us everyday that are beautifully designed and orchestrated that in my belief could have only come via God, but that is my faith and I will always put that to the test over proof established by less than perfect men.
But less than perfect men are the ones who came up with your faith. There is no object proven to come directly from god telling you how to worship just less than perfect men writing things down a 1000 years ago.
I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
And of course there is the matter of creativity. I remember an engineering student at my university telling me that the most employable engineers were C+ students, meaning that the bulk of mid level engineering jobs didn't demand a lot of ambition or talent, just basic competence.
And no offense intended to Credendovidis, who obviously DOES understand science. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sure the Bible was written and documented by less than perfect man BUT one has to believe (like I do) that the Bible was "God breathed or God inspired" Again one has to take that purely on faith.
And this was just not one man writing the entire Bible and having God speak to him but MANY different people over many years were all things tie into one another and do not contradict each other but support the accounts across large periods
I think it would be useful in discussions of evolution to distinguish between the evidence that evolution happened versus: (1) origin of life questions (which has been done here) and (2) the way in which evolution occurs (including but not limited to mechanisms). After reading these threads for a while, I see that creationists tend to go for one or the other of these latter two issues--both of which are hard to explain to novices--rather than the fact of evolution itself--which is much easier to explain.
Increasingly, I have been trying to focus on, "How do we know evolution occurred?" The answer is that we know evolution happened because evolution is literally recorded in the fossil record. To my knowledge, no one has offered another explanation for the pattern of fossils that shows a clear narrative of events that tells the story of evolution. (I have asked for an alternate explanation from creationists and received no answer so far.)
Second, and this is a separate line of evidence, you can construct a likely family tree of all these organisms based on their physical anatomy (as Linnaeus did). Third, that family tree AND the fact of organisms being related is confirmed by molecular data--whether DNA or protein.
None of this has anything to do with (1) the first cells or (2) whether evolution is always gradual or can be fast, whether macroevolution is at the species level (it is considered to be by biologists) or at the level of genera or higher (as Sassy argues). In other words, most of the creationist arguments against evolution are pitched at details about HOW evolution happened and ignore the entire body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that it must have happened.
One last point about Gaps: It's unclear to me why creationists keep harping on the gaps in the fossil record. So there at gaps. What of it? Gaps neither undermine the idea of evolution nor lend support for Creationism. I think it's important to get away from the idea that the gaps are a problem that needs to be explained away. Gaps are totally expected from everything we know, not only about the processes by which fossil beds are laid down, but also about how evolution itself happens. It would be strange if there were not gaps!
I find your excuses for not providing evidence for the things you claim are scientific, like abiogenesis or evolution, amusing at the very least, and intellectually dishonest more so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
;)
You believe in things like evolution or abiogenesis without the physical evidence you demand. :confused:
Again, I ask; where are the scientificly reproducibe experiments taking the basic elements like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon and coming up with a functional piece of DNA or RNA? :confused:
Then once you have accomplished that where did the amino acids to make proteins come from? The ribosomes? The cell membrane? :confused:
I ask you for evidence of what you believe and you deflect answereing the question asked by going to your pet thesis: that there is no ohysical evidence of "god," short of God coming down and touching you. Now bottom line, I agree with you. It takes faith and belief.
You have to remember this is a religious forum. To those who believe in God, science belittles. God is relational. God is beyond science, cannot be contained within the boundaries of science, and I BELIEVE is the creator of science, and physical laws, and what you may believe is "nature" or "natural selection."
The problem with engineers is that answers need to be ceratain and repeatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof.
The best evolution can do is provide retrospective studies without knowing the original factors involved.
Michaelb provided Lenski's work with E Coli - to become citrate + took 44000 generations and 20 years of a rigorously controlled manmade environment, and they still don't know exactly which generation or how it came about.
Here is a scientist, once atheist, who sees the physical evidence and comes to a different conclusion. Time 2006, he has a discussion with Dawkins, you might find interesting, of course dawkins is not a geneticist.
Francis Collins (geneticist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
This is an unreasonable demand or argument. Just because researchers cannot make a cell from scratch does not mean that it cannot happen, let alone that it could never have happened. There are lots of things that cannot easily be made from scratch (basic elements such as nitrogen and oxygen), which we nonetheless know are made every day. For example, plants synthethesize tons of sugar every day using carbon dioxide, water and the energy from the sun. You, inthebox, could not do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Meanwhile, researchers ARE working to synthesize artificial cells, called "protocells." When they eventually succeed--whether in 3 years or 10--the argument, unreasonable as it, will be even more meaningless.
This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I would argue that this is an extreme fundamentalist position--that science by its very nature "belittles"--a position not shared by the vast majority of believers.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.
[QUOTE=inthebox]
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof./QUOTE]
Then, if you reject all the evidence that is totally accepted by biology for the last 100 years, offer an alternative explanation for the pattern of organisms in the fossil record. Organisms go from simple bacteria without nuclei, to eukaryotic cells (with nuclei and other internal "organelles") to simple multicellular organisms, to more complex ones.
Everything pretty much starts in the sea as aquatic life, then, much later, different groups appear one by one in land environments. From fish to amphibians, to reptiles that make eggs that can hatch on land, to birds and mammals.
You NEVER find birds before fish. You NEVER find wolves before the first bacteria.
Explain this pattern in another way. Evolution Does explain this pattern, by the way, and the pattern is further confirmed by all biological information known, including biogeographic data, geophysical data, genetic and protein data. All of it tells the same story of evolution. So, really, the burden is on you to propose an alternate hypothesis that explains ALL these facts--as evolution does--and I guarantee you'll get a Japan Prize (the highest prize in biology--there's no Nobel Prize for biology).
It's fine with me if you believe God did it and don't believe in evolution. That's a personal choice. But it's not fine to say there's no evidence for evolution when the opposite is true: which is that there's no evidence that doesn't support the idea that all species came into existence through evolution. Even Sassy concedes that species evolve. :)
It seems that you feel a need to use ad hominems to bolster your position. It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Similarity does not mean that they evolved. That is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.Quote:
But there's plenty evidence for evolution itself --the evolution of millions of complex species from simpler forebears--in other words, bacteria, then photosynthetic bacteria, then eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and other "organelles" like our cells), yeast cells, plants, simple one-celled "animals" (protists), and animals of every kind. It's all laid out in the fossil record like a story book and the same story is confirmed by genetic studies. You can look up the specific evidence in any introductory biology textbook, so there's no need for people to list it here over and over. I've summarized the evidence at length on this forum, so you can look that up too.
Perhaps you are not aware that engineers must have e scientific training also.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Nothing? Only to you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Biology as a discipline definitely doesn't agree with you! The theory of evolution has a huge amount of explanatory power. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, although that's unquestionably an interesting question. But I agree that the origin of life is a more compelling question philosophically than the origin of every species of plant or animal that has ever lived. All the same, MOST people find it interesting to learn about how dinosaurs and sharks came into existence millions of years ago, to say nothing of how modern plants and animals like daisies and roses, horses and wolves came into being.
Um. I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution. That story is backed up by comparative studies of every description, whether those comparisons are in genes, proteins, or anatomy, to name a few. It doesn't matter whether you study, plants, insects, fish, or mammals. All these studies give the same answer--evolution. They never give the answer that it couldn't have been evolution, and that's been true for 100 years.
As far as science is concerned, there's no going back to a Biblical interpretation of Genesis. That's a strictly religious interpretation and has no scientific standing whatever. Genesis obviously HAS important religious standing to people like yourself and within some circles of people. But it's not science.
It's important to understand the difference between science and religion. What you are talking about is religion, which is another kettle of fish, and not subject to rules of evidence anyway, so there's no need to prove or disprove anything you say as long as you agree it's religious in nature. But if you DO want to discuss Creationism and call it science, then you become subject to the rules of scientific evidence, which means the burden is on you to provide an alternate hypothesis (to evolution) that explains all the same evidence in a consistent way. It's my opinion that if that were possible, it would have been done by now and made it into a scientific paper of CONSIDERABLE note.
But photosynthesis can be proven with grade school experiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Plant A gets water, co2, and sunlight
Plant B gets water, co2, and dark
measure which one grows.
I'm no chemist, but how do you think meth or plastic or fas is made? Basic elements are extracted then combind to make a finished product.
You are relying on FAITH. "When" is not reality, at least in the present moment. I can say "WHEN" cows ddevelop we can have surf and turf :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ASKING
[QUOTE = ASKING]
This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.
[/QUOTE]
It is a religious forum and I find it ironic ;) the evangelical fervor by which some argue that :
1] God does not exist
2] That evolution is believeable
[QUOTE = ASKING]
Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.
[/QUOTE]
I said that science belittles or is beneath God, since I believe He is the creator of all, including what we believe to be science.
Science, in fact, gives evidence to the wonders of God's creation.
For anyone, who thinks evolution is believeable, take a cell and / or molecular biology course and ask yourself, how did the complexity of a single living cell come about.
Then take a genetics course and ask yourself how did genes for various organ systems come about? From a single cell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
A very good point
It's only a good point if you don't understand biology or evolution.
Or logical thinking !Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
:D
·
Nice story - but keep in mind that I have looked into the evidence behind it, and the mounds of assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Even Darwin said that the fossil record was the largest problem or weakness in his theory. And the weakness in the fossil record remains today.Quote:
Um. I didn't say that.
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.
Right and since Darwin's time we have had 150 years of fossil discoveries and all fossil discoveries since Darwin's time has pointed towards evolution. It's no wonder you don't understand it if your still looking at 150 year old information.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM. |