Denial of evolution III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hay,

So science really doesn't know.
Click to expand...

Doesn't know yet.

You are simply stuck in time. You want all the answers even where there are none yet. This does not make evolution wrong, because there is not evidence against evolution only gaps in the evidence for.

Those gaps are closing everyday and will continue to close. If we find evidence against evolution then the theory will be re-examined, depending on what that evidence is.

The problem is that you are claiming creation out of nothing, just as we are, yet you aren't offering your evidence of where or what that source is.

I have a question for you.

Do you believe that life was created by a god ? and if so, is that life special to earth only, IOW, based on a religious belief for our origin.

If so, please let us know what god it is. So that we can then examine the evidence of your claim.

Otherwise, you and I will have to wait until we have an answer. It may not happen in our lifetimes. But then again, just think of all that we have discovered in the past 200 years.
 
hay_you said:
All these elements work together. RNA and DNA carry on character traits , but when it is the first one, in the first cell it has nothing to pass on. It must have to evolve it some how.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
 
I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.

That is:

They accept the 'simplest' explanation....

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

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.

That is:

They accept the 'simplest' explanation....

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

Peace be unto you ;)
Click to expand...

this isnt strictly correct.

Point 1.

Goddidit is the simplest answer of all time - and yet answers nothing.

Point 2.
sometimes the simplest, most economical explanation is mindbendingly complex and takes years of study to grasp.

Point 3.
The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them - but how many religious fanatics do you know that dont know the first thing about evolution? (try "all of them" if you're stuck for an answer)
 
spidergoat said:
Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
Click to expand...

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

add to that the fact that it can encode proteins and we have a pretty good candidate for an abiotic self replicating pre-cellular precursor of life (one of them anyway).

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090108/full/news.2009.5.html

On an altogether different note.

what are the chances of a WORTHY adversary in this forum instead of the total lightweights we've seen contributing so far? (sorry Hay_you and john99, no offence - but you are)

You know - a creationist who actually has the remotest clue about biology and evolution and might be able to ask some intelligent and searching questions instead of ramble inanely???


Too much to ask???
 
spidergoat said:
Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
Click to expand...

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

Point 1.

Goddidit is the simplest answer of all time - and yet answers nothing.

Point 2.
sometimes the simplest, most economical explanation is mindbendingly complex and takes years of study to grasp.

Point 3.
The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them - but how many religious fanatics do you know that dont know the first thing about evolution? (try "all of them" if you're stuck for an answer)
Click to expand...

No need to bring religion in it. I have just brought up a point irrespective of my religious convictions. I find the idea of accepting the simplest explanation to be not provable by the scientific method- stick to science.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
I was hoping that you answer the questions (at least the last two)- by explaining what a node was and what it represented
Click to expand...
No answers - or thread relevance - therein. Pass.
786 said:
I have just brought up a point irrespective of my religious convictions.
Click to expand...
You have not.
786 said:
I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis;
Click to expand...
You err in the ascription.
786 said:
I find the idea of accepting the simplest explanation to be not provable by the scientific method
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. Nothing is provable - in the modern sense - by the scientific method.
patel said:
The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them -
Click to expand...
I question that. Over the years I have seen so many intelligent and educated people have so much trouble with them I have come to view them as actually difficult, counter-intuitive, and easily confused or mistaken by most people.

Sure they seem obvious once comprehended and familiar: so does the concept of a "limit", or "probability", or "marginal rate", or "entropy".
 
iceaura said:
No answers - or thread relevance - therein. Pass.
Click to expand...

I believe I did say that they were questions on which a further argument would be made, provided you gave answers to them.

You have not.
Click to expand...

I can't do anything about your assumption that one can not argue a case from a different standpoint.


You err in the ascription.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how that little portion had said anything significant for which you commented on separately as clearly the next sentence was required to have any meaning for the sentence you commented upon.

That's irrelevant. Nothing is provable - in the modern sense - by the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Lol... Yet science does use the word 'provable'- and since we are discussing in the science forum I would hope that the word be understood under the scientific context and that you stop assuming that if someone is not an atheist that they don't understand this..

So now if you stop acting smart and give a response to the concern, that would be better.

Science takes the most simple explanation- on what basis? There have already been revisions to scientific understanding that were based upon 'simple explanations'- so to continue using that as a basis in accepting something is quite unscientific. To accept a simple explanation and make it part of a theory is to leave all the real scrutiny a theory faces to be almost irrelevant, it actually insults the work that is put into supporting a theory, as something as 'simple explanation' can be included in the same theory without any real scientific backing but simply on the stupid assumption that the most simplest explanation is to be accepted 'just cuz'.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
iceaura said:
It doesn't.

There is nothing "simple" about quantum electrodynamics, for example.
Click to expand...

No reason talking to you then because you either clearly lack knowledge of what I'm talking about or you are purposefully dodging the question..... so lets give someone else the chance to have a crack at it.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
No reason talking to you then because you either clearly lack knowledge of what I'm talking about or you are purposefully dodging the question
Click to expand...
Neither. You insist on asking questions based on mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches, and then refuse to accept the answers, is all.

Am I supposed to agree with you that a phrase like "the idea of accepting the simplest explanation {is} not provable by the scientific method" somehow makes sense, or applies to anything any actual scientist does or argues or believes?
 
iceaura said:
Neither. You insist on asking questions based on mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches, and then refuse to accept the answers, is all.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm quite open to accepting answers, a more recent example is the thread re-EVOL-ve in the Religion section :eek:


Am I supposed to agree with you that a phrase like "the idea of accepting the simplest explanation {is} not provable by the scientific method" somehow makes sense, or applies to anything any actual scientist does or argues or believes?
Click to expand...

It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'. Perhaps you should read Occam's Razor- as an example

I contend:
To assume that the simplest explanation is correct is giving an unproven interpretation to hard work that is put in a theory.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but in this world it doesn't.

Because they don't. They don't, say, accept deity interventions, miracles, wildly improbable coincidences, violations of the 2nd Law or other basic laws, and so forth - no matter how simple such explanations would be.
 
iceaura said:
Because they don't. They don't, say, accept deity interventions, miracles, wildly improbable coincidences, violations of the 2nd Law or other basic laws, and so forth - no matter how simple such explanations would be.
Click to expand...

Lol..... no reason to bring supernatural explanations into the discussion.... there can be complex natural explanations too.... you don't have to make this an atheist vs theist discussion... :rolleyes:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'. Perhaps you should read Occam's Razor- as an example
Click to expand...
Or perhaps it would be better if you realised the truth.
Science uses (not takes) the simplest explanation that fits the observations.
In other words it (at no point point) says ""this is simpler so on that basis we'll take it".
And even when the simpler explanation is used (i.e. not "taken", not set in stone) science does not stop looking at alternatives.
Occam isn't a fixed rule and isn't always followed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top