|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world. To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made & #8203;& #8203;use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “. Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe. After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” |
Even if we do live in a Matrix, as he claims, that isn't definitive proof of intelligent design or lack thereof.
All he's done is arrive at the conclusion that we live in a Universe governed by rules. Which we already knew.
He might be close to the answer, or it might just be the beginning of the rabbit hole.
He might be close to the answer, or it might just be the beginning of the rabbit hole.
He might be close to the answer, or it might just be the beginning of the rabbit hole.
I think you may be missing the point.
I remained convinced to this day.
He says, "I have concluded ..." and to "To me it is clear ...". He's offering an opinion. He doesn't say, "I have evidence of ...".
Really, I don't mean to offend,but a benevolent creator who is simultaneously in tune to every human being on Earth? Grow up.
I think I can answer those questions fairly easily...human consciousness is a happy accident, and we'll never get truly understand the inner workings of a universe so fast that our simple brains can scarcely comprehend it.
And then you also get religious people who don't even understand their own religion and atheists who don't understand basic scientific concepts.
Wait a minute, are you saying this might be a scam too? 😞
I remained convinced to this day.
I call bullshit. Everybody knows it's blueberries.
Religion is a falacy......a creation of man to cope, control and unify.
Granted, athiest who basically believe we are the gods.....have ego issues.
Now, creation as a happy accident......including the orange story above becomes illogical......
There was a plan with rules......so who or what.....not if......is only possible conclusion.......
Really, I don't mean to offend,but a benevolent creator who is simultaneously in tune to every human being on Earth? Grow up.
The basic question comes down to did God create man, or did man create God?
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." Carl Sagan
Well, obviously God wasn't infallible since he created you...a spitting image of himself.
Really, I don't mean to offend,but a benevolent creator who is simultaneously in tune to every human being on Earth? Grow up.
Your understanding of religion is somewhat lacking. Just saying.
These quotes don't equate.
Having said that, I heard an interview recently with Elon Musk who says there's very little chance that we aren't living in a matrix-like world. His theory is that we've been advancing so quickly in virtual reality and Artificial Intelligence that if you carry those advances out, there will be a time when you won't be able to tell the virtual from the real world.
"“The strongest argument for us probably being in a simulation I think is the following,” he told the Code Conference. “40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That’s where we were.
“Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality.
“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”
Where he loses me is how we're there already.
Quote:
.
Well, obviously God wasn't infallible since he created you...a spitting image of himself.
Then he created spiders.
"Definitive proof", "world renowned". More bullshit in this one than the "black hole in the sun causing mood disorders" thread...
Quote:
.
"Definitive proof", "world renowned". More bullshit in this one than the "black hole in the sun causing mood disorders" thread...
What if the black hole in the sun is God shitting on the use of cell phones instead of person to person interaction which greatly affects one's moods? That would be proof of God, right?
All he's done is arrive at the conclusion that we live in a Universe governed by rules. Which we already knew.
Is that really true? I may be behind, but I thought the only rule of the universe was randomness?
I remained convinced to this day.
Holy shit!! It's been almost 9 yrs already..holy crap
Religion is a falacy......a creation of man to cope, control and unify.
Granted, athiest who basically believe we are the gods.....have ego issues.
Now, creation as a happy accident......including the orange story above becomes illogical......
There was a plan with rules......so who or what.....not if......is only possible conclusion.......
That may be dumbest post on the board. Atheists believe they are Gods? Did you attend school in Kansas?
Aren't those things just perception, though? Certain music and art are considered "beautiful" by different people. One person might find something special about a song or piece or art while another could think nothing of either.
Really, I don't mean to offend,but a benevolent creator who is simultaneously in tune to every human being on Earth? Grow up.
J_Rud.........voice of reason (and I do mean that lol)......
Yet, these same people will swear to all that is holy that Bill Nye the Science guy mechanical engineer is an expert on Global Warming. lol
Vince Lombardi comes home after a cold night practice in Green Bay. When he walks in his house, he's greeted by his wife who says to him "God, your hands are freezing"
He turns to her and says "Honey, around the house its OK to call me Vince"
Yet, these same people will swear to all that is holy that Bill Nye the Science guy mechanical engineer is an expert on Global Warming. lol
Bill Nye...#1 on Gene-O's Pinko List.
Chris in Philly : 2:19 pm : link : reply
to scintillating observations from noted intellectual Gene. Preferably while angrily mashing his phone in the parking lot the family restaurant.
If I recall correctly it was voice to text while driving with his family in the car.
Which tries to establish if the concept of God exists?
Then please reexamine all of that after deconstructing both the particular language and the semantics used in your assertion and whatever "proof" you found
or
or you could just believe whatever you believe for any "reason" and allow everyone to do the same
Quote:
I look forward...
Chris in Philly : 2:19 pm : link : reply
to scintillating observations from noted intellectual Gene. Preferably while angrily mashing his phone in the parking lot the family restaurant.
If I recall correctly it was voice to text while driving with his family in the car.
Even better!
Trust me, the real problem is Kaku. It took me 3 months to figure out what a 'wector' was.
That's hardly definitive proof of anything by virtue of the fact that it's based in faith. It's certainly not science or any motivating factor in science.
That's hardly definitive proof of anything by virtue of the fact that it's based in faith. It's certainly not science or any motivating factor in science.
The problem isn't trying to see or seeing god in everything and anything, it's trying to resolve every last detail with their faith. There are faiths that go so far as to discourage this behavior, and for good reason.
BTW: I've always liked Michio Kaku because he can explain some complex things in a way that even I can understand it.
I put my teeth on the curb and begged from someone to stomp.
"It's okay, sweetie. Daddy has to teach the bad people."
BTW: I've always liked Michio Kaku because he can explain some complex things in a way that even I can understand it.
I Just think that the only people who reply are the anti-god faction. The rest of us know its a rathole to post on these threads.
When scientists venture into the world of "forecasting" or "explaining things that were never witnessed or cannot possibly be replicated", it's no longer science but a sort of voodoo politics.
Best guess estimates are that the earth is roughly 4 1/2 billion years old. I find it amusing that science books show charts of periods that are roughly the same size and can be shown on a single page. But if time was proportioned in reality, a timeline would have to be approximately 10 miles long and the last 150 years (the age of enlightened science) would be represented by a "period" roughly .003" in diameter. And in that time represented by a period, men like to explain everything that happened in that 10 mile stretch based on a few old bone fragments and some geological anomalies. Not only that, the whole science of evolution is based on a foregone conclusion by manmade charts and all data is then force fit into the pre-conceived models...the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work.
Personally, I see intelligence and a guiding hand behind the marvel that is the human race and the nature all around us. Does that prove there is a God? To some yes, to others no. It's good enough for me. Every man has to make up their own minds and conclude the reason we exist and the purpose of our lives.
Science is a marvelous thing when used in the right way. When it is used to predict ancient past - it's literally no different than blind faith in a omnipotent power that guides us and the universe. There is no logical argument to justify your faith based purely in science. It's the age old question that every generation before us has tried to answer and every generation forthcoming, "what the hell are we and where did we come from?" The answer will not be found on a sports message board, LOL
When scientists venture into the world of "forecasting" or "explaining things that were never witnessed or cannot possibly be replicated", it's no longer science but a sort of voodoo politics.
Best guess estimates are that the earth is roughly 4 1/2 billion years old. I find it amusing that science books show charts of periods that are roughly the same size and can be shown on a single page. But if time was proportioned in reality, a timeline would have to be approximately 10 miles long and the last 150 years (the age of enlightened science) would be represented by a "period" roughly .003" in diameter. And in that time represented by a period, men like to explain everything that happened in that 10 mile stretch based on a few old bone fragments and some geological anomalies. Not only that, the whole science of evolution is based on a foregone conclusion by manmade charts and all data is then force fit into the pre-conceived models...the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work.
Personally, I see intelligence and a guiding hand behind the marvel that is the human race and the nature all around us. Does that prove there is a God? To some yes, to others no. It's good enough for me. Every man has to make up their own minds and conclude the reason we exist and the purpose of our lives.
Science is a marvelous thing when used in the right way. When it is used to predict ancient past - it's literally no different than blind faith in a omnipotent power that guides us and the universe. There is no logical argument to justify your faith based purely in science. It's the age old question that every generation before us has tried to answer and every generation forthcoming, "what the hell are we and where did we come from?" The answer will not be found on a sports message board, LOL
Most of this is utter horseshit.
Science can't delve into history? So you don't believe genetics can trace back your ancestors, or predict illness? Weird.
You don't believe those heaps of bones we are finding everywhere are fossils of dinosaurs? What are they then?
You don't believe in the speed of light, blue shifts, etc that tells us the Universe is probably a lot older than the 3000 years your book tells you?
You don't believe in the speed of light, blue shifts, etc that tells us the Universe is probably a lot older than the 3000 years your book tells you?
"Your book" doesn't contain a date for creation.
Yes, as in "Fantasy."
Quote:
You don't believe in the speed of light, blue shifts, etc that tells us the Universe is probably a lot older than the 3000 years your book tells you?
"Your book" doesn't contain a date for creation.
So you win by default?
But the more we learn about the Universe, the more it becomes clear to me that the ultimate answer will not lie with some God-like creator and intelligent design. I think that instead the ultimate answer will somehow be related to our concept of time, which we grossly oversimplify. Time is what we think we understand, but we really don't.
In any case, here's a link to Stephen Hawking talking about Ed Witten's M-Theory....
And how it makes God unnecessary.... - ( New Window )
Quote:
You don't believe in the speed of light, blue shifts, etc that tells us the Universe is probably a lot older than the 3000 years your book tells you?
"Your book" doesn't contain a date for creation.
Pretty ckear you chose to sidestep the questions in order to engage in semantics.
It's okay. I'll let you off the hook.
Was there ever an origin and what makes you think so?
That just limits the realm of possibilities.
As Milton stated above, we are out to 7 dimensions now proving how little we know.
I remained convinced to this day.
That might be a decent argument if not for the millions of years of evolution and ten(s) of thousands of years of cultivation and hybridization by man. But it is a good example of the beauty and perfection in nature, that inspires many to find spirituality.
Or he/she/it may just be washing dishes?
Whoever said that it's a "complete accident?" Aside from you, of course.
You don't need faith when you rely on evidence.
What is interesting with some of our space observation advances is that they are finding a shit-ton of planets in the goldilocks zone, which would be a similar comparison to our proximity to the sun. Earlier, many thought ours was a unique scenario.
Quote:
that the existence of the universe, the beginning of life on earth, the marvel of the human mind etc. etc. etc is all a complete accident than it does to believe there's an intelligent cause behind it all.
It takes far more faith to believe that a two year old dying of cancer has an intelligent cause behind it than it being a random act of genetics. environment, etc.
Believing a two year was given cancer because some superior being has a better plan for them it isnt faith, it's idiocy.
Arnie D. : 9:47 am : link : reply
that the existence of the universe, the beginning of life on earth, the marvel of the human mind etc. etc. etc is all a complete accident than it does to believe there's an intelligent cause behind it all.
Under a condition of infinity, anything can happen, an infinite number of times. And please STOP placing the term "accidental" in other posters' mouths.
I remained convinced to this day.
Clearly, this man has never eaten Brussels Sprouts.
So children with cancer must mean God can't exist (or God is a total POS). And slugs, aphids, mosquitoes, Ebola, Zika virus, HIV, AIDS, rats, and, of course, the squirrels.
Pretty much David Hume's reply to the Deists.
In comment 12987259 Big Al said:
Quote:
that the existence of the universe, the beginning of life on earth, the marvel of the human mind etc. etc. etc is all a complete accident than it does to believe there's an intelligent cause behind it all.
It takes far more faith to believe that a two year old dying of cancer has an intelligent cause behind it than it being a random act of genetics. environment, etc.
Quote:
For you the evidence points to an accidental universe. For me the evidence points to a source. I've heard Hawkings state that the odds for the conditions being correct for our universe to exist are in the trillions to one. For example, if gravity was either stronger or weaker by a fraction, the universe couldn't exist. So then it follows that one must create a multi-verse theory with trillions of universes to produce the odds that even one universe can come into existence.
Under a condition of infinity, anything can happen, an infinite number of times. And please STOP placing the term "accidental" in other posters' mouths.
What BMac said. "accidental" is a straw man argument. The evidence doesn't point to a god in any way. If you think it does, it's just your faith and wish that it's grounded in truth that carries you there.
What caused the intelligence that created the universe to come into existence?
Mysterious ways.
What evidence do you have of god? I'm guessing you probably don't actually have any. More likely, you have just a feeling, based on odds you haven't actually calculated. That's a feeling lots of folks have and that's fine. But that's not evidence. If you have any I'd love to hear it.
And characterizing my position as "having evidence to the contrary" isn't correct either. It's not evidence that there isn't a god. It's acknowledging the complete absence of evidence that there is one.
If actual evidence came along that there was a god, it would be incredibly exciting. It would definitely make me question the way I look at the world. It hasn't happened yet and almost certainly (but not 100% certainly) never will.
But there is no reason why we should expect an explanation. We may want one, because the question is so profound, but there lots of things that happen for which we don't ask or expect explanations, and we are OK with it.
Why did the the dice just come up snake eyes?
As for evidence of God, I'm a former atheist who has had a personal experience that completely changed my mind. That's all I'll say about that over the net. And I certainly don't expect that to mean anything to anyone taking part in this discussion. But you asked.
Just because we don't have an answer to a question doesn't automatically relegate it to an act of God. We still haven't mastered the laws of physics, so how can we possibly pretend to extrapolate the existence of God/intelligent design from it. It's like telling someone x+y+z=56, now solve for x.
There is certainly a design to the universe, but all "evidence" indicates it is an unconscious design, not a conscious one. And the whole idea behind God is that he or she or it has some kind of consciousness.
As I said earlier, I think the missing piece to the puzzle centers around our limited understanding of how "time" works. It's hard for us to wrap our heads around the idea that there was a time when time did not exist. The idea that there was no such thing as "before" before the Big Bang is hard to comprehend.
Children of a stupid God - ( New Window )
True story (about the conversion, not the cure....)
Duh! A process, perhaps?
Quote:
If the conditions that enabled the universe to come into existence weren't purposely created, what other explanation could there be for those conditions to exit which enabled the universe to come into existence other than random or accidental conditions?
What caused the intelligence that created the universe to come into existence?
He evolved.
1 in a trillion is nothing when you consider there is no end to space
Not to mention that we haven't even addressed the issue of where did the material that created the universe even come from. As far as I know no human being has ever created material from nothing. And neither has the material universe. The material that created the Big Bang was smaller than the size of an atom - but where did that material come from?
Quote:
If the conditions that enabled the universe to come into existence weren't purposely created, what other explanation could there be for those conditions to exit which enabled the universe to come into existence other than random or accidental conditions?
What caused the intelligence that created the universe to come into existence?
He evolved.
1 in a trillion is nothing when you consider there is no end to space
Not to mention that we haven't even addressed the issue of where did the material that created the universe even come from. As far as I know no human being has ever created material from nothing. And neither has the material universe. The material that created the Big Bang was smaller than the size of an atom - but where did that material come from?
If God created everything, why did he have one planet in the solar system essentially inhabitable while the other ones (at least to our knowledge) aren't? What would the purpose be of multiple solar systems or galaxies comprised of mostly lifeless objects?
I just returned from the Big Island of Hawaii that has the presence of several volcanoes. Ancient culture didn't believe that eruptions were random events - they believed they were caused by angering Pele. So they made sacrifices to Pele - often in the form of humans. It didn't stop the eruptions, and several hundred years later, we understand the science behind the. Religion doesn't answer the why's behind volcanoes, earthquakes, famine, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. the Bible tried - by calling it God's retribution. But modern science explains the why's of these events.
At some point in time, the Hawaiian Islands will sink back into the ocean. There is a scientific reason for it. Ancient folks would believe that is the work of God.
I can't prove or disprove if a God created the universe, but the number of people who are certain it was astonishes me. Not because of the faith aspect, but because it is a blind reasoning. Much like ancient folks who feared Pele, Zeus, Thor and others.
As for evidence of God, I'm a former atheist who has had a personal experience that completely changed my mind. That's all I'll say about that over the net. And I certainly don't expect that to mean anything to anyone taking part in this discussion. But you asked.
Ok, lets stipulate that those odds are right. And if He does, what are the odds that he's the christian god and not the islamic version or that He's not a he at all? Like all believers, I would guess you greatly overestimate the mathematical probability of God's existence.
You had a private and likely powerful personal experience. I can understand how that can change how you look at this subject. But that's not evidence. At least not the kind that can prove something to be true to anyone but you. If you're happy with your belief and aren't the kind of believer that mucks things up for the rest of us, then more power to you.
The only thing more annoying than people who try to push their religion on me are the atheists who insist the evidence is there that God does not exist.
There is plenty of evidence all around us. How it is defined is a personal question, and then you get into the interpretation of the evidence, which is even more personal.
Unless we're ready to get personally intimate (wink, wink) please don't insist that your evidence is better than mine.
This is what we call respecting the opinions of others, something clearly lost on a lot of people today. For a long time religious types persecuted atheists. It seems to me the pendulum has swung and now persecution seems to go both ways.
Randy in CT : 1:59 pm : link : reply
why the need for proof when it is faith-based?
Because the vast number of permutations possible regarding Faith, it makes the discussion nearly useless. As mentioned above, let's say a God created everything. Whose God? If there are other solar systems, is that a different God? Are there multiple Gods?
I know this would be highly offensive to religious people, but saying you believe that God created everything ranges from being an innocently naive statement to being downright moronic when aggressively pursued by those who have no wiggle room in their beliefs.
Using the concept of Faith is just another way of saying if you can't prove something, or you can't explain it, it has to be divine intervention. Really no difference between that and people who thought Thor brought thunder or that Zeus threw lightning. And the kicker is that most people who refernce Faith scoff at those who worshipped the ancient Gods.
The only thing more annoying than people who try to push their religion on me are the atheists who insist the evidence is there that God does not exist.
There is plenty of evidence all around us. How it is defined is a personal question, and then you get into the interpretation of the evidence, which is even more personal.
Unless we're ready to get personally intimate (wink, wink) please don't insist that your evidence is better than mine.
This is what we call respecting the opinions of others, something clearly lost on a lot of people today. For a long time religious types persecuted atheists. It seems to me the pendulum has swung and now persecution seems to go both ways.
Alternatively, all you have to do is look to Ed Witten's M-Theory, which is the only current theory that successfully marries quantum mechanics with general relativity. Of course, it requires that we live in 11-dimensional space in which we are only able to comprehend four of the dimensions. So just maybe there is something in those other seven dimensions which reduce your trillion to one odds down to a slam dunk.
It may turn out that M-Theory is wrong, but at least it is based on mathematics and not just wishful thinking.
Absolutely, and it goes back a long time that way.
Yet recently one can easily find lots of people who take a certain pleasure in belittling those who've chosen to believe in God. It's a shame and evidence that too many people consider their knowledge superior, not just those who blindly exercise faith.
Nope - didn't mean to imply that.
schnitzie : 11:20 am : link : reply
In comment 12985421 BlueLou said:
Quote:
As a teen I befriended a young man who had dropped out of seminary school. He had been taught by Jesuits. After a beer or three he posited a very strong argument that the proof of G-d's existence was the orange. Without G-d, how could an orange taste so good, and be good for you, too?
I remained convinced to this day.
Clearly, this man has never eaten Brussels Sprouts.
or smoked poison ivy. god's little green leaves.
I'm open to there being some sort of Divine creation. For all of the questions I raised above, there are an equal amount that would ask how things were created in the first place. I do not believe in a divine being controlling the entire scope of life, and that's also a topic most people don't separate. They believe in divine creation and divine intervention.
My biggest gripe is that uttering Faith, by definition, absolves the need to be objective. It clings to a theory to explain all the unexplained. And that's a problem. It is a black/white discussion and unless I'm dealing with math, I've found black/white discussions are rarely useful or productive.
So I get back to work and I'm telling people about this and a few people said "That's amazing!" while I had two people say in so many words that God works in mysterious ways and allows life to blossom.
Sorry - but that's bullshit. It isn't all that mysterious once there is an understanding of how it happens. On the surface, it seems impossible, but once you literally look below, there is a very complete answer.
But I also know a fair number of people who once were very religious and now believe the opposite. We unfortunately know two families who have lost children to cancer. They became so disappointed at the number of people who told them it was their child's "time" or that God had a "plan" that they simply don't believe anymore. I even know a Cancer survivor whose own recovery made her believe there isn't a God because of the randomness in which the disease was killing people who were undergoing treatment the same time as her. She couldn't possibly reason that God would allow her to live while stronger people succumbed to the disease or that children with such a positive attitude will taken.
I wouldn't try to minimize your experience or what has shaped your views, but the personal take goes both ways.
Darwin was baffled after spending a great deal of time on the workings of the eye. The permutations and "beneficial" mutations of genes, etc., that caused nothingness to develop perfect sight with a lens that instantly focuses at varying distances and then translates everything to the brain blew his mind.
He told his comrade Tom Huxley, "look at this - everything we see in nature and in life is perfectly designed. How can that be? There should be untold millions of specimens that are in the early stages of evolution and at every stage, yet everything appears a finished product" As he pondered the extraordinary perfection of nature with his friend, Huxley interrupted him with his own troubling thoughts and replied, "as incredibly complicated as it seems, it just doubles in complexity when you try to figure out why it requires two opposing genders for the process to proceed."
That in itself is proof of nothing other than Darwin himself had skepticism of his own hypothesis and was troubled with the idea of how nothingness could become designed with such incredibly complexity and perfection when the driving mechanics behind it is sheer chaos and chance. It's like a category 5 hurricane blowing through a junk yard and leaving behind a perfectly built F-18 fighter jet from parts created by the wind.
I'm reminded of the articulate and brilliant Bertrand Russell's bleak pronouncement of human life when he stated: "That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins. All these things if not beyond dispute, are so certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."
In order to give credit to chaos and accidental "beneficial" mutations of genes over an incredible amount of time in the creation of the perfection that is the human race and all of nature, takes an incredible amount of faith. I understand that people like to associate themselves with the subject of science as it is a prestigious field of study for which most people are not only novices, but most are completely uneducated in the field. It seems almost magical and those without great understanding of the sciences tend to almost worship it as fact. Science grows in understanding as certain "scientific laws" are proven and established - there are quite a few. When it comes to the origin of life and our existence, it is based entirely on hypotheses and conjecture...hypotheses which are oftentimes called theories as the term theory holds more weight. But it is still conjecture no matter how many fancy names are given to it.
Our existence cannot be explained and proven by science or religion. So it's up to each individual to deal with the subject on their own. And again, it won't be settled on a sports message board.
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
Why would you, or anyone, need to prove or disprove if a God created the universe? It seems to be a zero-sum game.
Quote:
From my perspective, it appears that evangelicals are the group most likely to impose their views on society. See the Cruz supporters, the Kansas state school board, etc, etc as examples
Absolutely, and it goes back a long time that way.
Yet recently one can easily find lots of people who take a certain pleasure in belittling those who've chosen to believe in God. It's a shame and evidence that too many people consider their knowledge superior, not just those who blindly exercise faith.
Wrong. They consider the blind exercise of faith to be a clear and present danger.
I've been on record before saying this, but I truly feel that pushing religion is one of the most backwards element of society. Keep in mind, that is different from faith. Pushing religion often takes the form of a "truth in numbers" aspect. That the more people who believe the same - the truer the belief is. And it is unfallingly black and white. Several mainstream religions believe that you either are behind their Creed 100% or you are a non-believer. Frankly, I'm not sure how so many supposedly intelligent people get roped into that type of system.
I wouldn't have the audacity to tell people what they HAVE to believe, especially in matters that are unproven.
Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, understanding the origins of the Universe is nothing more than a fascinating topic. We will still live and die as we would absent that information. Yet there are millions of people who not only will tell you how the world was created, they will fight you to the death for believing otherwise - or at least wish death upon you.
So I'll just say this and won't debate it any further. Others can state their ideas and opinions but I won't respond. I think the reason we're here is to learn. This is a school and when we've learned everything we need to learn, we return to a higher dimension. Suffering is a result of our own actions, either actions in this life or a previous one. God set up the spiritual law of Karma, just as he/she set up the physical law of gravity. That's my take on it.
Yours is an example of a person who seems to have a strong Faith, yet doesn't feel the need to push it on others or even to give the specifics of why you changed your beliefs. You were simply addressing the topic at hand.
People often mistake my opinions on religion as me not believing. I very much have Faith - but a personal faith that doesn't necessarily fit within an organized religion's take. I'm not on Earth to be a blind follower - I'm on Earth to be a student and to learn. You put it much better than that.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
I just want to shout out to my BBI brethren that I sincerely thank you for keeping this civil.
I just want to shout out to my BBI brethren that I sincerely thank you for keeping this civil.
I'm not sure how seriously it was ever taken and I know several doctoral scientists that still argue its validity. Regardless, once Harvard professor and world renown Stephen Jay Gould and his sidekick Niles Edridge endorsed punctualism (Punctuated Equilibrium), it gained quite a following for awhile as Gould was the leading scientist in the world in the field of paleontology. I believe it is still being thrown out there as an opposing view to gradualism as an alternative theory.
Gould studied more fossils than the next 50 paleontologists combined and found no connection between species in a gradualistic sense and basically took off with Ernst Mayr's earlier theory that had been ridiculed. Just before Gould died, he did an interview and was asked, "what will you ask God if you discover there was a God after all?" He responded, "I will ask Him, why didn't you give us more information to work with", which I always found rather humorous
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
Quote:
In comment 12987844 mrvax said:
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
My thoughts are that microevolution and macroevolution are pretty much the same thing and artificially make some sort of difference by the number of generations involved. You can see evolution in certain organisms directly because of their generation rate but you cannot see it for a duck or human because it is slower. Still the same thing. You talk about a duck being a duck or a human being a human. Is a wolf a dog! Is a Neanderthal s homo sapien?Is a crocodile an alligator? Things spectate at different rates. As time goes by separated parts of a species start to lose the ability to procreate together sometimes being able to but leaving barren offspring and eventually not interbreed at all. You can call two separate species of duck both ducks but that is just a name we give them for convenience. They are really not the same thing orduck and eventually if separately long enough in different environments might not even look like what we call ducks.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
I use the term "Darwinist" because I believe traditional evolution as taught in the last century to be little more than another religion with a different godhead. So you are pretty astute to pick that out of my ramblings. And yes, I am a born again Christian. I do not consider myself "religious", but rather "spiritual". I believe if religion is man's organized attempt to find God. If one is spiritual, he's already found God and avoids the ceremonial stuff related to organized religion. I believe that any organization that has a hierarchy of power and positions, and money is involved, will invariably become corrupt over time. I keep my life simple by praying, studying the Bible in depth, and enjoying all the nature this world has to offer.
I have debated for years on this subject including at Cornell (which is very close to my home) and several other universities. I do not argue favorably for creation or any other explanation of our being (Panspermia, Classic Gradualism, Punctualism, etc.), but play the role of Socrates and simply question everything. I do not get offended by people who don't agree with me, but I get surprised at how people are often offended if I don't agree with them. Seems weird to me as none of us have a corner on knowledge - especially concerning our existence in the first place. In my opinion, no matter how life started and how we got here, it had to be "supernatural", and by that I simply mean, a method that is in direct contrast to the laws of nature. Whether someone wants to credit an unseen intelligence with a guiding hand or a "lucky break in infinite chaos" matters little to me. I just like the subject matter.
FYI, my degrees are in engineering, math and statistics with a lot of college level courses in most of the sciences. However, I believe there is nothing a person can learn in college that can't be learned for free by doing hard research and studying in a good library. I'm no expert, just a man with a million questions and have been on a quest for answers my whole life.
Quote:
In comment 12987908 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12987844 mrvax said:
Quote:
Not just on BBI but talking to people, other websites, etc., I find that a large number of folks don't know the difference between "Evolution" and "Natural Selection" and use the terms interchangeably. I'm a firm believer in the latter.
Good point. I have been in debates on the subject since the early 80's and have sat on college debate teams and discussed the subject relentlessly for decades. The biggest change in the last 40 years is in terminology. In the old days, the term "evolution" simply meant the whole process from life suddenly bursting from dead matter in some ancient primordial goop to all the beauty that is the world around us today. Terms such as "speciation" and "adaptation" have been lumped into a new term known as "micro-evolution". Meanwhile, a new term called "macro-evolution" consists of the whole enchilada from nothingness to everything we see today which traditionally has simply been called, "evolution".
That would be fine, because micro-evolution has scientific validity based on many studies. It explains why humans for generations near the equator have developed more sun fighting melanin in their skin than those whose ancestry spent thousands of years closer to the polar caps. It explains why Eskimos have thick ears and thick cheeks that help them battle extreme cold and why waterfowl develop webbing between their toes. Life forms do indeed adapt to their environment. Unfortunately for the die-hard Darwinist, it doesn't change the fact that individuals with differences based on their ancestral environment are still humans of the same species and modern ducks compared to ancient ducks are still ducks.
Herein lies the problem. Many scientists (mostly done on purpose) love to say, "evolution is proven" which is a meaningless statement because what they are really saying is that "micro-evolution is proven". Macro-evolution on the other hand is based on postulation and guessing while force fitting all clues into a preconceived model as though the model is proven.
To a non-science educated novice on the street, they only know about the now-defunct term called "evolution", which is last century's terminology that has the old "spontaneous generation" (now re-termed "abiogenisis" but is the same thing) where a single celled life form sprang into existence and billions of years later grew into a body with eyes, ears, brains, reproductive organs, and a wide variety of senses. That is now called "macro-evolution". So when someone says "evolution is proven", the person either has no clue or is purposely trying to persuade a novice into a believer in the old defunct model. It is always necessary in science now to ask, "are you talking micro or macro evolution?" because the term scientific evolution is utterly meaningless without the prefix. As a sports metaphor, it's like understanding how a football is made and then declaring that because you know how a football is constructed, the NY Football Giants have won every game they have ever played and always will win and never lose in the future.
Another misleading term is "the missing link". An honest scientist who works in the field of anthropology, paleontology, etc., knows that there is a "link", but a missing chain. Hence the development of a newer hypothesis called punctuated equilibrium to explain why the connection from ancient life forms to modern life forms do not exist.
My thoughts are that microevolution and macroevolution are pretty much the same thing and artificially make some sort of difference by the number of generations involved. You can see evolution in certain organisms directly because of their generation rate but you cannot see it for a duck or human because it is slower. Still the same thing. You talk about a duck being a duck or a human being a human. Is a wolf a dog! Is a Neanderthal s homo sapien?Is a crocodile an alligator? Things spectate at different rates. As time goes by separated parts of a species start to lose the ability to procreate together sometimes being able to but leaving barren offspring and eventually not interbreed at all. You can call two separate species of duck both ducks but that is just a name we give them for convenience. They are really not the same thing orduck and eventually if separately long enough in different environments might not even look like what we call ducks.
You use the basically outdated term "Darwinist" . That is a term that creationists generally use. Out of curiousity do you believe in what you call macroevolution and are you a creationist? Just would like to know where you are coming from.
I use the term "Darwinist" because I believe traditional evolution as taught in the last century to be little more than another religion with a different godhead. So you are pretty astute to pick that out of my ramblings. And yes, I am a born again Christian. I do not consider myself "religious", but rather "spiritual". I believe if religion is man's organized attempt to find God. If one is spiritual, he's already found God and avoids the ceremonial stuff related to organized religion. I believe that any organization that has a hierarchy of power and positions, and money is involved, will invariably become corrupt over time. I keep my life simple by praying, studying the Bible in depth, and enjoying all the nature this world has to offer.
I have debated for years on this subject including at Cornell (which is very close to my home) and several other universities. I do not argue favorably for creation or any other explanation of our being (Panspermia, Classic Gradualism, Punctualism, etc.), but play the role of Socrates and simply question everything. I do not get offended by people who don't agree with me, but I get surprised at how people are often offended if I don't agree with them. Seems weird to me as none of us have a corner on knowledge - especially concerning our existence in the first place. In my opinion, no matter how life started and how we got here, it had to be "supernatural", and by that I simply mean, a method that is in direct contrast to the laws of nature. Whether someone wants to credit an unseen intelligence with a guiding hand or a "lucky break in infinite chaos" matters little to me. I just like the subject matter.
FYI, my degrees are in engineering, math and statistics with a lot of college level courses in most of the sciences. However, I believe there is nothing a person can learn in college that can't be learned for free by doing hard research and studying in a good library. I'm no expert, just a man with a million questions and have been on a quest for answers my whole life.
This right here is the crux of the argument.
The atheist position is not "God does not exist." The atheist position is "There is no evidence that God exists."
Believers ask for atheists to prove that God doesn't exist as if the atheists are the ones making a positive assertion in this argument.
You cannot disprove the existence God or anything else. There is no conceivable evidence of nothingness or nonexistence. You CAN affirm the existence of God or anything else if evidence presents itself.
The atheist rejects the unproven assertion of the theist that there is an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent creator of the universe.
The theist is making an extraordinary claim and as such must present extraordinary evidence to substantiate it, if that is indeed the goal.
If there is a God, than he is the Universe in totality. And we are all just parts of him along with every other molecule that makes up the Universe. That's the closest I can come to believing in God.
Quote:
what a person puts their faith in: One either gives credit to chaos and luck, or the guidance of unknown intelligence.
They used to say the same thing about the rain: either it was chaos and luck or it was those damn Rain Gods. If you threw them a few virgins, it seemed to make them happy, but not always. Which meant you either needed to sacrifice more virgins or the previous virgins you threw them weren't really virgins.
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Comparing the understanding of the mechanics of rain with the mechanics of the existence of all life is silly. No one can prove why we exist and where we came from. It's really that simple. Nothing wrong with studying it and trying to figure it out, but speaking about it authoritatively is little more than evangelizing a pre-bent philosophy and is not based in fact.
If you adhere to gradualism (the theory of macro-evolution that gradually evolved from nothing to everything), then you also have to believe that genetic mutations are inherently beneficial and with every mutated gene, something improves dramatically in a life form - like growing legs, eyes, and ears when prior generations of the same type had none. Yet, the science is indisputable that mutated genes create negative consequences (spinal bifida, cerebral palsy, deafness from birth, blindness from birth, missing extremities, missing organs, mental health disabilities, etc. In fact, ask any parent who is about to have a baby if they'd like a scientist to introduce a mutated gene into the fetus of their child in the womb and you won't get any takers (unless the parents are complete idiots)...even if the scientist claims there is a one-in-a-billion chance the child will be an improved version of the human race. And to hold fast to the theory of gradualism, you have to have faith that mutated genes are overwhelmingly good and constantly improving the human race into a better species.
Quote:
In comment 12987742 mavric said:
Quote:
what a person puts their faith in: One either gives credit to chaos and luck, or the guidance of unknown intelligence.
They used to say the same thing about the rain: either it was chaos and luck or it was those damn Rain Gods. If you threw them a few virgins, it seemed to make them happy, but not always. Which meant you either needed to sacrifice more virgins or the previous virgins you threw them weren't really virgins.
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Comparing the understanding of the mechanics of rain with the mechanics of the existence of all life is silly. No one can prove why we exist and where we came from. It's really that simple. Nothing wrong with studying it and trying to figure it out, but speaking about it authoritatively is little more than evangelizing a pre-bent philosophy and is not based in fact.
If you adhere to gradualism (the theory of macro-evolution that gradually evolved from nothing to everything), then you also have to believe that genetic mutations are inherently beneficial and with every mutated gene, something improves dramatically in a life form - like growing legs, eyes, and ears when prior generations of the same type had none. Yet, the science is indisputable that mutated genes create negative consequences (spinal bifida, cerebral palsy, deafness from birth, blindness from birth, missing extremities, missing organs, mental health disabilities, etc. In fact, ask any parent who is about to have a baby if they'd like a scientist to introduce a mutated gene into the fetus of their child in the womb and you won't get any takers (unless the parents are complete idiots)...even if the scientist claims there is a one-in-a-billion chance the child will be an improved version of the human race. And to hold fast to the theory of gradualism, you have to have faith that mutated genes are overwhelmingly good and constantly improving the human race into a better species.
Some mutation is beneficial (ie: increases survivability of the organism to raise its chances to reproduce and pass on its genes), some is neutral, some is maladaptive.
When beneficial mutation occurs, the organism typically thrives and reproduces so those genes are passed on to the next generation.
When harmful mutation occurs, that organism typically does not survive to reproduce.
Over a long period of time a population is shaped by which genes get passed along and which do not.
You are mistakenly inserting the idea of intent into a process which is impersonal.
The number of "good mutations" necessary for a tiny glob of primordial snot to become all that we see around us including ourselves, is a number so astronomically high that it's beyond human comprehension. The glob of snot did not suddenly "reproduce" because it had no reproductive system where it could suddenly give birth to a better piece of snot perhaps this time with a spine. A spine is not a bone spur, but a series of highly intricate bones of incredible complexity so that discs, vertebrae, facet joints designed just right to allow 6 degrees of movement (like the Zygapophysial joint that allows movement in the z-axis), ligaments constructed just right to hold the 23 discs making up a spine in place, and other such intricate parts like softer bone-like tissue such as anulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus to protect discs and vertebra from nerves (of course, we don't know where nerves developed and without a brain yet, nerves would be meaningless), and all parts neatly constructed from neck to lower back so that all of the parts can allow movement around a protected spinal cord that is a delivery system to the brain. And this is even before there is a head on the piece of primordial snot, or legs, or arms/hands/fingers, etc. And the spine is kids play compared to the brain, or the eyes, or ears.
Yet giving credit to chaos and lots of luck, all of that must have happened because as the primordial snot reproduced somehow (strange as it had yet to develop a reproductive system) and literally "nothing became something". And after nothing became something, it took various paths with beneficial genetic mutations which after millions of years include all varieties of vegetation, animals, fowl, reptiles, and of course us human beings. Pretty incredible. And the number of "good mutations" required to build that piece of primordial snot into a masterpiece like Odell Beckham Jr., with the speed and coordination to catch an errant pass with two fingers while being tackled is literally unfathomable to the thinking mind. And it all started with primordial snot and a whole lot of lucky breaks in a world of chaos with no intelligence guiding it.
Granted, 1 out of a billion or so mutated genes can be beneficial...as in possibly enhancing our immune system. But thinking that nearly all (or even a few) mutations can be beneficial and that those so-called beneficial mutations built a masterpiece from snot through randomness...is quite simply, crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
The idea that beneficial mutations can mold lifeless snot into highly complex, intelligent, dual gendered living organisms with intelligence, emotions, and the ability to love requires a leap of faith so incredible that I simply cannot take that jump.
This of course does not prove the existence of God, but a healthy mind should have some pretty serious skepticism about the current "scientific" explanation of our existence.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Ancient beings thinking a rain god was controlling things happened not just out of superstition, but given their knowledge at the time, they had no way to prove what caused the rain. Their ignorance led to believing it was God.
The existence of Humankind and all the nature is not explained by science today, but simple things like rain and volcanic eruptions weren't explained by science years ago. Perhaps we are in the same place as our ancient ancestors in that we can't figure it out because we don't yet have the knowledge to do so.
What I've always found to be a contradiction of organized religion is the insistence that "Enlightenment" is happening, all while the idea of free speech and free thought isn't truly tolerated. There's big business to be had in making sure that people have the Fear of God, or at least the unknownness of God.
The rest of your post is just arguing that it just does not make sense to you. Sort of like saying that quantum physics can't be right because it makes no sense to me.
Quote:
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature. Not really their fault.
The existence of humankind and all the nature around him bursting forth from nothing is not explained by science and therefore requires a ton of conjecture. Heck, the best scientists in the world cannot even recreate life in its very simplest form from dead matter, but not for lack of trying and endless and exhaustive research over many years.
Ancient beings thinking a rain god was controlling things happened not just out of superstition, but given their knowledge at the time, they had no way to prove what caused the rain. Their ignorance led to believing it was God.
The existence of Humankind and all the nature is not explained by science today, but simple things like rain and volcanic eruptions weren't explained by science years ago. Perhaps we are in the same place as our ancient ancestors in that we can't figure it out because we don't yet have the knowledge to do so.
What I've always found to be a contradiction of organized religion is the insistence that "Enlightenment" is happening, all while the idea of free speech and free thought isn't truly tolerated. There's big business to be had in making sure that people have the Fear of God, or at least the unknownness of God.
The number of "good mutations" necessary for a tiny glob of primordial snot to become all that we see around us including ourselves, is a number so astronomically high that it's beyond human comprehension. The glob of snot did not suddenly "reproduce" because it had no reproductive system where it could suddenly give birth to a better piece of snot perhaps this time with a spine. A spine is not a bone spur, but a series of highly intricate bones of incredible complexity so that discs, vertebrae, facet joints designed just right to allow 6 degrees of movement (like the Zygapophysial joint that allows movement in the z-axis), ligaments constructed just right to hold the 23 discs making up a spine in place, and other such intricate parts like softer bone-like tissue such as anulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus to protect discs and vertebra from nerves (of course, we don't know where nerves developed and without a brain yet, nerves would be meaningless), and all parts neatly constructed from neck to lower back so that all of the parts can allow movement around a protected spinal cord that is a delivery system to the brain. And this is even before there is a head on the piece of primordial snot, or legs, or arms/hands/fingers, etc. And the spine is kids play compared to the brain, or the eyes, or ears.
Yet giving credit to chaos and lots of luck, all of that must have happened because as the primordial snot reproduced somehow (strange as it had yet to develop a reproductive system) and literally "nothing became something". And after nothing became something, it took various paths with beneficial genetic mutations which after millions of years include all varieties of vegetation, animals, fowl, reptiles, and of course us human beings. Pretty incredible. And the number of "good mutations" required to build that piece of primordial snot into a masterpiece like Odell Beckham Jr., with the speed and coordination to catch an errant pass with two fingers while being tackled is literally unfathomable to the thinking mind. And it all started with primordial snot and a whole lot of lucky breaks in a world of chaos with no intelligence guiding it.
Granted, 1 out of a billion or so mutated genes can be beneficial...as in possibly enhancing our immune system. But thinking that nearly all (or even a few) mutations can be beneficial and that those so-called beneficial mutations built a masterpiece from snot through randomness...is quite simply, crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
The idea that beneficial mutations can mold lifeless snot into highly complex, intelligent, dual gendered living organisms with intelligence, emotions, and the ability to love requires a leap of faith so incredible that I simply cannot take that jump.
This of course does not prove the existence of God, but a healthy mind should have some pretty serious skepticism about the current "scientific" explanation of our existence.
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
Quote:
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
When I've been in debates about perfectly formed and the complexities of life, it usually leads to another set of questions.
- Is life truly perfectly formed?
- Why this planet only (to our current knowledge). Why create Earth and surround it with a bunch of non-functioning planets when it comes to a theory that God in Omnipotent?
- Is something perfect that can have so many permutations in design and can have the life force ended in so many different ways - often through the actions of other forms of life (such as bacteria) or random cell growth (Cancer)
- How far do alternate galaxies extend and was it a single entity that created the entire universe?
I think that there had to be some truly extraordinary event to bring about life. How that happened is something I'll never figure out in my lifetime. Being a skeptic is natural because we all lack this knowledge.
Quote:
This is a lot of words aptly demonstrating that you really don't understand this subject very well at all. If you did, you'd know that "nearly all mutations" being beneficial is absolutely not part of evolution theory.
I have been in these discussions/debates for many years. Those who I debate are mostly scientists, many of which have Phd's and are experts in their field. When the dust settles, they all admit that the mechanism that drives evolution from the simplest life forms to the most complex is genetic mutations.
My points are: 1) beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare and 2) the sheer number of mutations required to build the complex life form that is the human race, is unfathomable...even if put on a timeline of many trillions of years instead of the paltry millions of years of time.
I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
I'm not offended. It's just that "it's unfathomable" is a lousy argument. How long 3-4 billion years is also unfathomable but it's about how long it's taken for life to get to today. You greatly underestimate the things that can happen in that amount of time. The sheer number of species that have evolved and become extinct is unfathomable too. The universe is unfathomably big. The Higgs-boson particle is unfathomably small.
The thing is, just because a thing is unfathomable doesn't mean that the logical conclusion to be drawn from that thing is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ must be God. This is a simple and obvious mistake of logic.
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence.
Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
How did you ever come up with that gem? Your reading comprehension is as muddled as your understanding of the topic.
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
The scientific cause of rain is not conjecture. It is understandable, it is able to be witnessed, and can be proven in controlled experiments and is repeatable. Ancient beings thinking there was a rain god were not basing their beliefs on anything other than superstition and a lack of the fundamental understandings of nature.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
I don't think ridiculing someone is exactly a strong argument. I've been studying this subject since the 70's and have met and discussed this same subject with many scientists with prestigious backgrounds and education. Funny thing is, no matter how the discussion goes, none of us ridicule each other or request others to stop asking questions. We have mutual respect and treat each other as such. No reason to attack me personally. I just ask a lot of questions and hopefully, get some brain cells awakened by people having the same questions about our existence.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
Quote:
In comment 12988485 mavric said:
Quote:
In comment 12988448 Heisenberg said:
Quote:I don't mean to offend anyone. I am just a major skeptic of the idea that random chaos spread over time (macro-evolution) is the creator of a perfectly formed and unbelievably complex set of life forms on this planet.
At the risk of prolonging this lunacy, the mutation process is neither random nor chaotic, nor is it accidental, or any of the other framing flags you've been using.
So, I guess you are a proponent of intelligent design and believe mutated genes are controlled in an intelligent manner rather than random. That's okay. That's the final conclusion of many world renown mathematicians including Antony Flew, one of the most staunch atheists in history. They come to the same conclusion...there is an intelligence guiding nature. Of course, this ruffled the feathers of staunch evolutionists because if evolution as taught in high schools is correct, there cannot be intelligence guiding anything in nature and it MUST be random chance and lucky breaks.
Regardless...I have no desire to convince anyone that scientists who I associate with say that the driving force in change over generations are mutated genes. I would love to hear another explanation as to why something as simple as an amoeba can grow reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, digestive, systems controlled by a highly complex brain given enough time, exponential generations, and a healthy dose of really good luck. I have never heard a single explanation for this driving force other than mutated genes as the engine driving evolution.
Heck, even today's greatest thinkers are having second thoughts. Like Stephen Hawkings earlier this week announcing that he believes there is an intelligence behind creation. Does that make him right? Heck no. It just means he doesn't fall in line with other great thinkers as he ponders our very existence. Stephen Hawkings Shocks Scientific World as He Admits He Agrees with Intelligent Design - ( New Window )
Dude... that link.
That site is a fake news site. Like, literally, they make it all up.
not a real news site. just read their disclaimer. - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988931 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
Here you go. - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12988931 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
What are you hoping to accomplish by debating a guy on natural selection who's clearly shown he either doesn't understand the the way it works, or worse, intentially misrepresent it so as to keep everyone busy correcting him.
He's said it over and over again. It's too complex for him to fathom and so he chooses to believe in the one variable: God.
Possibly our responses are directed at those reading and not understandings the flaws in his argument. We are aware nothing will change his mind.
Well - it would be nice if posters on this board would point out the "flaws" with actual factual rebuttal rather than resort to personal ridicule.
I have been ridiculed for pointing out that mutated genes are believed to be the driving force of "non intelligent macro evolution" and I get responses that there are other forces. Yet they fail to bring them up or even venture a guess. I'm fair game for debate, but it gets old when posters decide to go after me personally rather than refute my statements with a well thought out and fact filled response.
Regardless, if this is going to become about me. I'll move on and ask no more questions that make some people uneasy.
No one is pointing out flaws - they are redirecting the discussion to a different subject altogether and avoiding the hard questions that scientists have been dealing with for years. One person denies that mutated genes are the driving force that took a speck of dead primordial snot and somehow gave it life, and then caused it to morph into a dual gendered life forms with brains, respiratory systems, eyes to see, ears to hear, mouths to taste and chew, etc. The person boldly states that I obviously "don't understand natural selection"...lmao. He then pats himself on his back thinking he has put someone in their place. But...it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. I have been clearly discussing MACRO-Evolution.
Natural selection explains why successive generations of life forms (especially - if not uniquely - in the animal kingdom) in which the female species searches for the best male counterpart in which to breed for a better offspring. Over time, the life form produces better physical specimans with more ability to fight off diseases. Also, natural selection explains why certain life forms adapt better to different environments and therefore successive generations of offspring tend to be better in dealing with the environment they are stuck in. That is "Micro-Evolution"! No one with a scientific background denies micro-evolution.
But I'm asking about "Macro-Evolution" - the driving force that caused the primordial snot to suddenly "awaken to life" and "morph into all that we are". Natural selection does not cause dead primordial matter that resembles snot to snap to life and then grow a skeletal system with an intricate spine, a functioning brain, legs to walk, etc. So as one of the so-called "flaws in my argument" because I "obviously don't understand natural selection" goes - that's bullshit.
Tell me the driving force behind dead matter coming to life and over time developing dual genders (that require each other in order for their species to survive) and morph into all the makings of the human body with DNA code that holds far greater information than all the information found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't care that over time a human being is a better life form thanks to selective mating, better nutrition, medical breakthrough, improved medicines, etc. Natural selection started as a physical and mental specimen and over time ended up as a better physical and mental specimen. Now if natural selection explained why a banana morphed some kind of animal or why the primordial snot chose a path to become a flower instead of the human race, we'd have something to hang our hats on. And BTW, humans share 60% of our DNA with a banana plant - but only 50% of our DNA with a banana. And yes, we share close to 90% of our DNA with a dog. My dilemma in my personal thought life, is "how did that snot come to life and become everything", NOT why are humans physically better in the 21st century compared to the 18th century. Actually, this subject barely scratches the surface of the things I ponder. Sometimes I'd like to be able to shut my brain down and only worry about what beer to drink and which woman has a better backside.
Quote:
Your straw man arguments don't make people uneasy, they just make us frustrated that when the flaws are pointed out, you merely ignore them and resort to the same straw man for another dishonest hatchet job. You pretend to be interested in a genuine back and forth debate, but, as Big Al points out, your refusal to address any questions that make you "uneasy" proves that's not really the case.
No one is pointing out flaws - they are redirecting the discussion to a different subject altogether and avoiding the hard questions that scientists have been dealing with for years. One person denies that mutated genes are the driving force that took a speck of dead primordial snot and somehow gave it life, and then caused it to morph into a dual gendered life forms with brains, respiratory systems, eyes to see, ears to hear, mouths to taste and chew, etc. The person boldly states that I obviously "don't understand natural selection"...lmao. He then pats himself on his back thinking he has put someone in their place. But...it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. I have been clearly discussing MACRO-Evolution.
Natural selection explains why successive generations of life forms (especially - if not uniquely - in the animal kingdom) in which the female species searches for the best male counterpart in which to breed for a better offspring. Over time, the life form produces better physical specimans with more ability to fight off diseases. Also, natural selection explains why certain life forms adapt better to different environments and therefore successive generations of offspring tend to be better in dealing with the environment they are stuck in. That is "Micro-Evolution"! No one with a scientific background denies micro-evolution.
But I'm asking about "Macro-Evolution" - the driving force that caused the primordial snot to suddenly "awaken to life" and "morph into all that we are". Natural selection does not cause dead primordial matter that resembles snot to snap to life and then grow a skeletal system with an intricate spine, a functioning brain, legs to walk, etc. So as one of the so-called "flaws in my argument" because I "obviously don't understand natural selection" goes - that's bullshit.
Tell me the driving force behind dead matter coming to life and over time developing dual genders (that require each other in order for their species to survive) and morph into all the makings of the human body with DNA code that holds far greater information than all the information found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't care that over time a human being is a better life form thanks to selective mating, better nutrition, medical breakthrough, improved medicines, etc. Natural selection started as a physical and mental specimen and over time ended up as a better physical and mental specimen. Now if natural selection explained why a banana morphed some kind of animal or why the primordial snot chose a path to become a flower instead of the human race, we'd have something to hang our hats on. And BTW, humans share 60% of our DNA with a banana plant - but only 50% of our DNA with a banana. And yes, we share close to 90% of our DNA with a dog. My dilemma in my personal thought life, is "how did that snot come to life and become everything", NOT why are humans physically better in the 21st century compared to the 18th century. Actually, this subject barely scratches the surface of the things I ponder. Sometimes I'd like to be able to shut my brain down and only worry about what beer to drink and which woman has a better backside.
Now...Scarlett Johansson or Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba or Shakira (the list seems endless)...don't even need beer, just have a pulse left.
Now...Scarlett Johansson or Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba or Shakira (the list seems endless)...don't even need beer, just have a pulse left.
"Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny."
Link - ( New Window )
No one here has said god doesn't exist. The contention is that there is no tangible, testable evidence that god exists.
"Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window )
I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever.
I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down.
If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes?
Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us.
World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"
Quote:
As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph:
"Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window )
I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever.
I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down.
If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes?
Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us.
World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"
Life does not require opposite sexes. There are still plenty of species that reproduce asexually.
There are literally thousands of examples of "transitional" species.
No, we don't understand what first created life. That's not any sort of argument for or against evolution or god. It is just an unknown.
If you accept micro-evolution as small changes in species over a relatively short period of time, why are you struggling so much with the idea of when that time period is extended to "unfathomable" lengths (millions or billions of years) that all of those small changes would build upon one another to eventually end up with a completely different species? Your arguments aren't logical.
God is all knowing and all powerful. Evolution just happens to be the mechanism used to get the result he wanted. Just like he created all sorts of physical laws to govern our reality.
They don't conflict at all that I can tell.
Quote:
As I said this is just another in a series of creationist ploys to distort real science. They are really forms of the same thing. Their target audience does not understand science well enough(if at all) to understand the false argument, I just searched and found a website which explains this in a better way than I could. The first paragraph:
"Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This use posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes—referred to as macroevolution—cannot happen naturally. This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny." Link - ( New Window )
I am not using some ploy to try and convert anyone to anything. Everyone has to make their own conclusions as to what they want to believe, whether it's Panspermia, Theistic Evolution, Classical Evolution, Creation, or whatever.
I find many people who fear the possible existence of an intelligence get very testy if you question anything about classical evolution. Makes it difficult to have a quality debate when one side is easily offended and shuts down.
If "micro-evolution" is virtually no different than "macro-evolution" - then the question begs: what were the circumstances that led to the beginning of life? What caused very simple single-celled lifeforms to "morph" into a walking, swimming, flying, growing, thinking, reproducting, life form? If classical evolution is factual, where are the transitional forms between simple and complex found in the fossil record? Why can't we reproduce similar phenomena when we so thoroughly understand the workings of living things? Why does life require opposite sexes?
Everyone seems to prefer talking about the ability for life forms to vary due to the environment or breeding factors (micro-evolution). But that doesn't explain why lifeless slurry suddenly became life in a simple form and it certainly doesn't explain why it became dual gendered and how it grew a complex and perfect skeletal system in which to develop a brain, eyes, and so forth (macro-evolution). Hence, the small adaptations we have figured out such as natural selection and adaptation are a couple of "links" in a chain that requires many millions of links and we don't understand it. We have a "missing chain", not a "missing link". And according to the greatest paleontologist in history (Stephen Jay Gould, may he RIP), the fossil record indicates a missing chain. Hence the reason he took off on the punctuated equilibria kick simply because he could not find "transitional forms" in the fossil record and discovered that fully formed life forms suddenly appear in a certain geological strata and just as quickly disappear. But there are no traces of intermediate life forms. This troubled Gould and he had access to millions of fossils hidden in the basements of the British Museum of Natural History (where hundreds of thousands are stored) and the American Museum of Natural History (again, where untold hundreds of thousands of fossils are stored). Gould spent years in these dark basements comparing every type of fossil and every type of bone ever discovered. His conclusion can be found in his writings:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Like Gould, many of the most prominent evolutionary scientists know just how much the theory relies on imagination, not substance that can be documented. But in order to keep a career and the money flowing in from universities and government educational grants, the scientists must keep little secrets from the knaves like us.
World renown late paleontologist and systematist, the prestigious Dr. Colin Patterson after spending the majority of his life as an advocate of classical evolution (gradualism) addressed a crowd of colleagues and made his famous quote: "Can any one of you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?"
Second, I don't see any "fear" by those who believe in evolution, of intelligent intervention. What I see is them finding no evidence or need for it. In other words, scientific doubt, not fear.
Third, the fossil record of transitional forms is overwhelming. Frankly I think pretty much all fossil records, other than those species that went extinct are transition forms between one thing and another. If you expect an absolutely complete fossil record, you are doing what Creationists do, ask for more than possible, and then claim victory because the impossible is not achieved (while holding their own claims free of need of any evidence).
By the way, who claims life needs two sexes?
There is no PLOY. Except for super-sensitive people who think everything is a ploy when confronted with questions they cannot answer.
And seriously, when Stephen Jay Gould says that are no transitional forms of life found in the fossil record, I'll take his word over some guy on a sports message board who probably has never even taken a college course in biology or anthropology. Gould was the most respected paleontologist in the world by virtually every scientist - a most highly esteemed Harvard University professor.
Why do you think it's a "ploy" to question something? I don't question natural selection or adaptation. I don't question selective processes. I question things like, "how did life originate from nothing?" and "how did single celled organisms become multi-celled organisms?" and "how can DNA code contain billions of data that creates all that we are?".
There is no ploy - just questions without answers. But it apparently rubs some people the wrong way to ask questions.
This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.
Quote:
"Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."
This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.
Quote:
In comment 12990023 Big Al said:
Quote:
"Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."
This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.
You remember some of my debates with Spock? That was fun. Must have been around the year 2000.
I do remember those; difficult to forget dinosaurs in the Congo! However, I'm referring to a session in which Spock got banned, along with his compatriot who tried his best to impersonate an intellectual (he got shit-canned, too). This was between 1.5 and 2 years ago.
Now we have Mavric. How are you Spock?
First off, your citation is wrong.
Here is the original article is was from:
Gould, S. J. 1977. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History 86(5):12-16.
Secondly, here is Gould himself correcting the false interpretation of what you quoted:
[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
So there is your answer for why nobody (including Gould) believes there are no transitional species in the fossil records.
Quote:
In comment 12990028 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12990023 Big Al said:
Quote:
"Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."
This reminds very much of the marathon session with Spock and his hired gun. Pointless to continue because Mavric has transparently displayed his purpose, and that purpose isn't to "discuss' anything rationally.
You remember some of my debates with Spock? That was fun. Must have been around the year 2000.
I do remember those; difficult to forget dinosaurs in the Congo! However, I'm referring to a session in which Spock got banned, along with his compatriot who tried his best to impersonate an intellectual (he got shit-canned, too). This was between 1.5 and 2 years ago.
Now we have Mavric. How are you Spock?
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
Quote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
Quote:
Quote:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
This is quite a quandary. Who are we to believe on what Gould thought? A quote from Gould himself or a guy on a sports message board?
Its obvious, you need to go with the BBI member.
My ridicule of you was well earned. There's no shame in not knowing something. There's no shame in holding different beliefs, in the minority, whicheck fly in the face of consensus, as Giordano Bruno and Copernicious did centuries ago.
The shame lies in claiming to hold all of the answers - the Universe and everything in it - spins at the behest of a being who's not shown himself once in several millenia. The believe in God, you must accept one of, if not a combination of:
a) God is a benevolent being who allows the massacre, suffering and destruction of his favorite chosen creation, or;
b) God is powerless to stop it;
c) God is a malevolent being that invokes pain and suffering, to what ends I'm sure I don't know.
My ridicule of you is based not on your beliefs, but the dishonest manner in which you intentionally twist and obfuscate things which are no longer in dispute by reasonable individuals.
Evolution and all that it entails are not in dispute. It's established fact and the evidence is quite literally everywhere, in all forms of life, and are accepted by every scientific discipline.
If you've ever debated learned individuals, as you so claim, I can only surmise the reason you weren't laughed out of the room was their unending patience and politeness.
And I've no doubt that you are, in fact, Spock.
My daughters friend was killed in HS. She was jogging and a senior citizen swerved and hit her. The minister at her funeral kept saying she was so special God wanted her now. I was tempted to ask him why she had to suffer 3 days in the hospital AFTER being hit by a fucking car if she was so special.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Quote:
In comment 12990217 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Quote:
In comment 12990219 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12990217 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12990148 Big Al said:
Quote:
doubt this is Spock.
The timing, the message, and the method is just too coincidental for this not to be Spock.
Spock does not know enough about science to comment at this level.
But he (Mavric) isn't talking about science. He's quoting from the Creationist playbook, just as he and his compatriot did in the recent past. He's copying and pasting this tripe, with small revisions to make it fit the thread narrative.
Spock did not know enough on how to use the playbook by himself. His answers were even more shallow. He needed his henchman Eunuch to get up to this level.
He's had two years to "bone up."
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.
Based on what he's posted, I'd guess that these debates actually don't happen at all, or that he's looked at as an ignorant crackpot by any group he's engaging publicly.
Looks like I kicked a hornet's nest and stirred up a lot of sensitive people.
Regardless, I have no "ploy" as I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs and I certainly do not have a "playbook". I have never defended creationism because there is no hard evidence to back it up. I only question things being pawned off as real science when in my opinion, it's just another religion with a different godhead. There have been some great scientific breakthroughs while trying to prove macro-evolution, especially in the fields of DNA/RNA research and knowledge of viruses and the development of vaccines. Although important, it doesn't explain how we got here in the first place.
I am not confused, I am not on some duplicitous mission, or wanting to challenge someone's beliefs. I just have a lot of questions and am more than a little skeptical about the model of classical evolution based on gradualism as the engine. And I have always admired Gould and even went to one of his symposiums he held at Cornell along with several local professors. He too shared a healthy amount of skepticism without apology. That is the sign of a healthy mind in science.
There was a time when skepticism was a good thing (although, Galileo might argue). Now it's rockin like it's 1635...and "never question anything being fed to you". Just imagine if Copernicus never questioned the worldwide accepted view of the world's scientists who held the views passed down by Ptolemy. And here we are a thousand years later and people go off the rails if you question generally accepted theories. Mind boggling.
Well sorry guys, I question everything and I don't apologize for being a skeptic. I'm sorry if you take it personally.
Who is being sensitive here? You say you want a good discussion, yet don't address anything that's been posted that contradicts you- instead you just claim that everyone is being "sensitive".
I'm trying to have a decent back and forth, I haven't resorted to any personal attacks, and have backed up my claims with evidence, yet instead of responding to any of them, you call people "sensitive". Pot or Kettle?
The evidence on this thread points to just one person not wanting to engage in discussion, and one person avoiding anything that challenges their beliefs.
Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar.
This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous.
Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious.
- Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation".
- Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms"
I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation".
I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference.
Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds.
I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Quote:
Actually you seem extremely sensitive about people expressing skepticism about your intentions and honesty.
Everyone is sensitive when they are basically called a liar.
This discussion has turned into a personal attack on me and no one is coming up with any scientific information that answers the questions. I understand that people will attack the messenger when they don't have answers, but this is getting ridiculous.
Regardless: let's start from the beginning and maybe someone will actually state something scientific rather than dig deep to find different ways to disparage me as a person in hopes that I will stop asking questions or pointing out the obvious.
- Micro evolution is refinement over time of "existing life forms". I am in 100% agreement with the factual evidence of micro evolution. In my college days, it was called "adaptation" and "speciation".
- Macro is how the existing life forms came into being in the first place - the whole enchilada from "simple life snaps into being from dead matter (abiogenesis) and then morphs into incredibly complex individual life forms"
I have brought up the fallacy of "macro evolution", yet people either cannot fathom the difference between micro and macro, or they are playing dumb. And it irritates me when a non-science educated person says "evolution is proven" without a clue they are talking about "adaptation" and "speciation".
I could care less that deer have become bigger, stronger, and have bigger horns than several hundred years ago...or that canine life forms have become refined into untold varieties of dogs. I want to know how the glob of primordial goop found life and turned itself into the original deer or dog in the first place. That is macro evolution. Please learn the difference.
Secondly, what purpose would it serve me to lie or try to deceive strangers on a message board? I am a retired professional engineer and many of my associates think I'm an intellectual (which always makes me laugh because I've met intellectuals and they are a lot smarter than me). I'm not some bored high school troll trying to stir up conflict with strangers. I have no desire to get people to suddenly turn to religion or anything else. I don't want creationism taught in schools as a science class or even a philosophy class - I just see a lot of holes in something that many people take for granted as fact and think it's "science" because the hypothesis of evolution has been integrated into the high school biology textbooks and insinuates that it's factual to young minds who are a captive audience. I wish the proper perspective of timelines would be shown (i.e., a ten mile long timeline with a miniscule dot at the end and within that dot of time, arrogant people actually state as fact that they understand everything that took place on that previous ten mile strip based on hand drawn pictures and a lot of imagination). I wish it would be brought up that there are some genuine flaws in the whole concept and that those flaws tend to be kept secret and swept under the rug to keep even more skepticism from entering smart young minds.
I have always liked the subject and found it fascinating for decades. I like discussing the subject with science-type knowledgeable people. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, a lot of times the subject turns away from actual intelligent discourse and into personal attacks...which to me, never made any sense.
Science Against Evolution - ( New Window )
No, that's an opinion.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Ha, ha...I have followed Gould and his work for literally decades. I admire his work and admired him as a person when he was alive. I have nothing but respect and admiration for his knowledge and his life's work.
As far as "transitional fossils" go - there's a link, but the chain is missing. It was the biggest dilemma that Gould faced and he openly stated such. Example: any trace of transition between the most simple life form into a highly complex complete life form with skeletal formation is entirely missing. Are there transitional fossils of various forms of horses? Of course there are. It's just that the oldest fossil of an equine life form is a wholly complete complex horse complete with legs, body, head, teeth, eyes, etc. The links between the goop and the first horse are missing. And therein lies the problem of "transitional" forms found in the fossil record. The ones that Gould pointed out.
Then that leads to other questions by inquisitive people with a thirst for answers. For instance, "why haven't bats, dragonflies, mosquitos, rats, or crocodiles changed - or your basic elephant...to name just a few species that decided not to morph into something else". Some of the oldest fossils ever discovered show a 50 million year old bat virtually identical to modern bats. The skeletal systems of crocodiles indicate no difference between modern and the most ancient. And yes, modern elephants are quite different from ancient elephants, but where did that first ancient elephant come from??? We certainly understand the micro evolution in which modern elephants adapted to a new environment - we just don't know where the first elephant came from and the fossil record does NOT give us a clue.
Gould asked these questions and didn't get ridiculed. Perhaps because he intimidated his colleagues. Gould was not afraid to admit there were questions without answers - and he was an atheist and one of the prime promoters of macro evolution. He was honest and straight forward, unlike today's promoters of macro evolution who have little scientific background and haven't got even the slightest clue why punctualism became a valid alternative hypothesis by Eldrige and Gould in the first place.
Maybe one of you who bash me can explain why Gould adopted punctuated equilibrium (punctualism) as a potential answer to his personal questions and dilemma. That would be an interesting start to intelligent debate.
Okay, you're making the statement. Now prove it. If you can't, it's just another opinion.
I love that you bring up the horse, as it is another example of quote mining:
"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown." "Ideas on evolution Going Through a Revolution among Scientists," - Boyce Rensberger: Houston Chronicle, 5 Nov. 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.
Representative quote miners: Darwinism Refuted: The Myth of Horse Evolution and Darwinism Watch: The Old Tale Of The Horse’s Evolution
The article is about a four-day meeting at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago attended, so the article says, by 150 scientists and a very few observers. The mechanisms of evolution were discussed at the meeting, but the article focuses on Punctuated Equilibria.
The following paragraph appears near the beginning of this article:
Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes.
The author goes on to note: "Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists ... [and a discussion of the meeting], followed by:
No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth.
This is a rather serious omission, I think, from the context of the quote in question.
The article goes on to describe gradualism then segues to Eldredge's comments. It states, in regard to Gould and Eldredge's ideas, that:
As they see it, species remain largely stable for long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition happens so fast, they [Gould and Eldredge] suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms being fossilized and found is nil.
Then comes the horse evolution paragraph. There are a couple of immaterial typos in the quote originally supplied. The following is what appears in the article:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-like creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
It's a strange paragraph, in that it interrupts the flow of the article. The following paragraph reads:
Eldredge and Gould represent a school of thought called 'punctuated equilibrium,' and although many paleontologists are adherents, many evolutionists from other backgrounds still consider themselves gradualists closer to the Darwinian mold.
The article proceeds to discuss Thomas Schopf's view that what appears to be stasis is not really stasis, for example, because soft parts are not preserved in fossilization. The article closes by stating that population geneticists also dispute Punctuated Equilibria.
- Sarah Berel-Harrop
An article by the same writer appeared the previous day in the New York Times entitled "Recent Studies Spark Revolution in Interpretation of Evolution" (page C3). However, this quote isn't in it. But it does include the paragraph that appears in the Houston Chronicle article:
Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
[Editor's note: Perhaps it is significant that the paragraph about the horse sequence, which does not appear at all in the New York Times article, appears to be "stuck in" out-of-place in the Houston Chronicle article. If its inclusion was an editorial decision, rather than the reporter's, the question arises just how objectively the quote itself was presented and whether the editing was fair and represented a complete thought on Boyce Rensberger's part.]
The quote appears to be more an explanation for the general public that the "horse sequence", did not represent an orderly "ladder" running from "primitive" forms to modern Equus, as was originally thought as far back as Darwin's time, but, instead, is a particularly prolific "bush" with many branches that all went extinct, except for Equus. As Kathleen Hunt points out in her article "Horse Evolution" in the Archives.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
Finally, it is a sign of the creationists' attitude toward the issues involved that they would quote a journalist from an article in the popular press on a question of science. As good a journalist as Mr. Rensberger may be, such an article can give only superficial treatment to complex issues. Just made to order for their agenda.
- John (catshark) Pieret
Quote:
evolution takes place. His theory only focused on HOW. He contends that there are fits and starts- none of which is evidence for anything other than fits and starts.
Contrary to what you are attempting to make it sound like he's said, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples of transitional forms that are clear evidence of macro evolution.
Is his science background not good enough?
Ha, ha...I have followed Gould and his work for literally decades. I admire his work and admired him as a person when he was alive. I have nothing but respect and admiration for his knowledge and his life's work.
As far as "transitional fossils" go - there's a link, but the chain is missing. It was the biggest dilemma that Gould faced and he openly stated such. Example: any trace of transition between the most simple life form into a highly complex complete life form with skeletal formation is entirely missing. Are there transitional fossils of various forms of horses? Of course there are. It's just that the oldest fossil of an equine life form is a wholly complete complex horse complete with legs, body, head, teeth, eyes, etc. The links between the goop and the first horse are missing. And therein lies the problem of "transitional" forms found in the fossil record. The ones that Gould pointed out.
Then that leads to other questions by inquisitive people with a thirst for answers. For instance, "why haven't bats, dragonflies, mosquitos, rats, or crocodiles changed - or your basic elephant...to name just a few species that decided not to morph into something else". Some of the oldest fossils ever discovered show a 50 million year old bat virtually identical to modern bats. The skeletal systems of crocodiles indicate no difference between modern and the most ancient. And yes, modern elephants are quite different from ancient elephants, but where did that first ancient elephant come from??? We certainly understand the micro evolution in which modern elephants adapted to a new environment - we just don't know where the first elephant came from and the fossil record does NOT give us a clue.
Gould asked these questions and didn't get ridiculed. Perhaps because he intimidated his colleagues. Gould was not afraid to admit there were questions without answers - and he was an atheist and one of the prime promoters of macro evolution. He was honest and straight forward, unlike today's promoters of macro evolution who have little scientific background and haven't got even the slightest clue why punctualism became a valid alternative hypothesis by Eldrige and Gould in the first place.
Maybe one of you who bash me can explain why Gould adopted punctuated equilibrium (punctualism) as a potential answer to his personal questions and dilemma. That would be an interesting start to intelligent debate.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
It is a bush, and it is there.
Quote:
The quote appears to be more an explanation for the general public that the "horse sequence", did not represent an orderly "ladder" running from "primitive" forms to modern Equus, as was originally thought as far back as Darwin's time, but, instead, is a particularly prolific "bush" with many branches that all went extinct, except for Equus. As Kathleen Hunt points out in her article "Horse Evolution" in the Archives.
As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
Overall, the horse family demonstrates the diversity of evolutionary mechanisms, and it would be misleading -- and would be a real pity -- to reduce it to an oversimplified straight-line diagram.
Quote:
...
Sort of like a mule.
Ebony and Ivory.
I don't think anyone is pointing to a "straight line diagram", but rather the entire roots and trunk to the nicely drawn "tree of life" we've all been force fed since youth, is where the battle lines are drawn and no one wants to go there for a discussion. They prefer to get bogged down in the details of the leaves and its DNA, and RNA, and whether or not protein can be synthesized, etc. That has educational value, but it doesn't explain the seedling, the roots, or the tree trunk.
Gould said: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
It seems to matter little to the promoters of the origin of life by unseen random luck, that the evolutionists' phylogenic tree is made up of leaves, but the roots, trunk, and branches have to be assumed because we are all pre-programmed because of a picture of the evolutionary tree of life drawn in our high school biology books and in National Geographic.
It's great that we can build taxonomy charts based on observation, diagnosis, and precise calculation in order to identify the billions of life forms - especially when bitten by an unknown spider or snake and one wishes to know if medical attention is necessary. But again - taxonomy charts are the glorious leaves of tree that is sadly missing except in our imaginations. I'm far more interested in the roots and the trunk of the tree...ahem, "macro-evolution" than the obvious represented by the leaves.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
This conversation is pointless. You aren't trying to have an honest discussion because your understanding is lacking and based within creationalism.
It's like a child asking why the sky is blue, but refusing to accept that water can be found in varying states. It's a non starter and won't go anywhere.
Well, sorry if you don't like the definition of some words. But the root of the word "natural" is "nature". Hence, anything to do with life (i.e., "nature") on planet earth is "natural". If that bothers you so much, I won't refer to that again. Seems kind of petty and silly to argue over.
If this conversation is "pointless", why do you waste valuable time of your life tapping out responses in a weak attempt to ridicule me? Those reactions are things that make me scratch my head. I see many threads in which I disagree with someone, but I'll not waste my time trying to ridicule an unknown individual. That's senseless. To me anyway.
As far as creationism goes, I have not once tried to promote it and I have clearly said that creation cannot be proven and furthermore, I can't tell you enough how much I could care less what you believe. I certainly don't want to convert you to anything. Why would anyone possibly care whether or not you accept a certain explanation as to our existence? As for me, I just don't believe random luck in a whirlpool of chaos makes anything that requires trillions of infinitesimally small details to fall into perfect place. If you do - that's fine. I would never ridicule you or anyone else for that matter. Seriously, what would be the purpose? I don't make fun of someone and have never ridiculed those who adhere to Panspermia or any other ideas of origin and our existence. I just never understood why anyone would care if someone believed in a creator or in any other explanation of origins of life. What possible difference does it make to you? Strange behavior if you ask me.