Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[lightgigantic]

Going back to the Big Bang is just silly. The fact is that we do have a planet earth with the necessary chemicals for life. Your objection is utterly irrelevant.

actually the fact is that life is only ever seen to arise from life

If you want to start talking about the "necessary chemicals" of life you are simply talking about speculation (which is why there is no consensus in theory on the subject .... which I guess is the natural consequence of any so-called scientific claim totally bereft of issues of application)
:shrug:

 

[sideshowbob]

actually the fact is that life is only ever seen to arise from life

And dinosaurs have never been seen walking around, therefore they never did?

If you want to start talking about the "necessary chemicals" of life you are simply talking about speculation (which is why there is no consensus in theory on the subject .... which I guess is the natural consequence of any so-called scientific claim totally bereft of issues of application)

There is no consensus because there are a number of plausible pathways. It may be that we will never have a consensus on what "did" happen but that's much different from suggesting that it "couldn't " happen.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I didn't ask angels, but I asked God and he simply replied that I took finches there, there's food for them and they want to be there. Birds can fly.

Edit: On another occasion I asked why the finches are different on each island and He replied I made them different. Then natural selection decides which succeed. Diversity is prerequisite how life can go on.

That would require God to be a liar which is kind of problematic for your proposition to pan out.

The islands are newly created. They were volcanos that rose out of the sea floor some 5 or 6 million years ago long after birds inhabited South America. They needed a lot of time to collect sand and vegetation before birds who were tossed there by storms became stranded and took up sanctuary. From that point on these birds evolved. Therein lies the rub. They were not created in their present form.

Nothing, no living thing, was created in its present form. Every creature has descended from ancestral forms, in a span of around 3.5 billion years. Every creature is the product of some ancestor that achieved a significant genetic mutation that endowed it/her/him with some survival advantage.

And the simplest proof of this is the explanation of the appearance of new species at Galapagos.

The idea that God put them there is really ridiculous. It would require God to reach over to South America and take 26 species and place them on the island - mostly of one genera, the finch - then to turn back to Souh America and instantaneously kill off 23 of those 26, plus to wipe out all traces of their existence, including all bones and fossils.

That would make God not only a liar but diabolical, insofar as this would have no possible effect other than to mislead Darwin into developing his theory. And this says God created the Theory of Evolution by causing Darwin to experience this sinister deception. And of course it would make God a liar.

What's worse is that this imaginary God would have to be continuing the deception in the manner of a demon, by causing all kinds of evolutionary phenomena to take place right under scientists' noses, also then necessarily leading them astray by the tens and hundreds of thousands, just to further perpetuate the most absurd and senseless lies a divine being might have in mind.

Of course for this reason alone God obviously does not exist. The entire concept is too paradoxical and absurd to even remotely be plausible, even if you give room for all of the magic that's required to repeal the laws of nature every time they get in the way of some silly, superstitious belief that is based on myths that ancient people created to explain phenomena for which they had no science.

Now we know better.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am a Catholic who believes in the existence of evolution.

Not very firmly, since you go on to say:

However, people saying that evolution created humans is kind of an over-statement of evolution.

Actually it's an understatement. Humans appear very late in natural history. Humans are closely related to apes as I'm sure you know. Similar evolutionary forces acting on apes have acted on humans. There are many humanoid (hominid) forms that preceded us. Their fossils form part of the ever growing body of evidence of human evolution. So do their cultural artifacts, such as tools, or, in the case of Neanderthals, their burial sites and artwork.

For a particle to turn into a human there would have been some reason for this to have happened.

Yes, the union of two single celled organisms, the human egg and sperm, are particles that come together for the purpose of sexual reproduction, which is an evolutionary-favored means of speciation and survival.

Evolution occurs because of environmental reasons.

That's one of many sources of natural selection. Evolution occurs because of genetic mutation over repeated episodes until a trait is acquired that favors survival under some change or "niche" condition.

Also, evolution is not adaption of species, it is removing the factor of the non-fittest and allowing the ones that have the ability to reproduce and later on genetically improvise their current structure, however to an extent.

This is precisely how adaptation occurs -- by natural selection.

If you could explain how humans had evolved from a particle to what we are today without any broad sense of the idea, it could be a good idea to look at

Humans did not evolve from a particle unless you are referring to sperm and/or egg "particles". Humans evolved from proto-humans, and many of our gradual changes in form from, say Ardipithecus or Homo Erectus, until the present form of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, have been fossilized and preserved as evidence that we did in fact actually evolve no matter how much that conflicts with your religious ideology.

but simply because evolution can explain how a turtle evolved to grow a long neck from a short one over thousands of years doesn't supply sufficient evidence to the idea that humans evolved from small particles.

You need only understand the turtles of Galapagos to understand why they evolved long and short necks. It's quite fascinating, since the plants they were reaching for co-evolved. Both the food and the feeder went through natural selection, and the process varied on separate islands, causing them to diverge.

You are missing the more significant point about Galapagos. The species that occur there were created there, long after birds were inhabiting South America. For examples, the finches were created by adaptive radiation. It's a process of splitting into many forms when multiple niches are available for exploitation. They had no competition, so they ended up over populated and competing among themselves. They adapted -- evolved -- to eat just about every form of food a bird can survive on. And the iguanas developed the ability to dive into sea water and collected sea weed, and then, of course, to digest sea weed.

Yes, Galapagos is the key to understanding evolution by natural selection. And evolution is necessary to explain all the weird early human and humanoid skulls and skeletons that preceded us millions of years ago.

And all of this is acceptable to the Catholic Church. So you're at liberty to study it, learn it and to accept it.

 

[lightgigantic]

And dinosaurs have never been seen walking around, therefore they never did?

perhaps that reference would be an adequate parallel if there were no dinosaur bones or any other fossil record from the prehistoric era

There is no consensus because there are a number of plausible pathways.

and there is a number of (ever changing) plausible pathways because there is a complete absence of any issues of application in the field aside from scientists telling stories that "sound right"

It may be that we will never have a consensus on what "did" happen but that's much different from suggesting that it "couldn't " happen.

Much like there is quite a distance from the tea cup to the lips as with suggesting that because something "could" happen, it "did" happen.

Geez I mean even an atheist will tell you how the invisible pink unicorn "could" exist ....

:shrug:

 

[sideshowbob]

perhaps that reference would be an adequate parallel if there were no dinosaur bones or any other fossil record from the prehistoric era

The issue isn't whether evidence has been found yet. The issue is your logic. Before evidence for dinosurs was found, you would have been incorrect to conclude that dinosaurs never existed. Similarly, before evidence for abiogenesis is found, it is incorrect to conclude that it didn't happen. That's why scientists are investigating how it could have happened.

and there is a number of (ever changing) plausible pathways because there is a complete absence of any issues of application in the field aside from scientists telling stories that "sound right"

What scientists are talking about is mechanisms by which simple chemicals could have become living cells. There may indeed be multiple ways in which it could happen. We may never know for sure which way it did happen but it's futile to claim that it couldn't happen.

Much like there is quite a distance from the tea cup to the lips as with suggesting that because something "could" happen, it "did" happen.

That's probability for you. Given enough time, anything that can happen will happen. If creationists were willing to admit that it could happen, I don't think anybody would mind them believing that it didn't happen.

Geez I mean even an atheist will tell you how the invisible pink unicorn "could" exist ....

The invisibility part might be an issue but otherwise, yes pink unicorns could exist. Science is prepared to treat any evidence for pink unicorns exactly the same way as it treats the evidence for evolution.

(And it's funny how creationists scoff at the existence of an invisible pink unicorn while they embrace the idea of an invisible pink God.)

 

[lightgigantic]

The issue isn't whether evidence has been found yet. The issue is your logic. Before evidence for dinosurs was found, you would have been incorrect to conclude that dinosaurs never existed. Similarly, before evidence for abiogenesis is found, it is incorrect to conclude that it didn't happen. That's why scientists are investigating how it could have happened.

so if there is no evidence to speak of, what is the value of this so-called investigation?
and why try and play such so-called "investigations" as being on par with the investigation of fossils or metal smelting or a host of any other scientific disciplines that is accompanied by "doable" activities?

What scientists are talking about is mechanisms by which simple chemicals could have become living cells. There may indeed be multiple ways in which it could happen. We may never know for sure which way it did happen but it's futile to claim that it couldn't happen.

so once again, in the complete absence of any working mechanisms, the only thing at stake are the egos of a handful of scientists and the hordes of their ardent followers
:shrug:

That's probability for you. Given enough time, anything that can happen will happen.

hence all issues of probability are relegated to what can happen

If creationists were willing to admit that it could happen, I don't think anybody would mind them believing that it didn't happen.

Oh you mean like atheists willing to concede that god exists as the summum bonum?

IOW what you are talking about are two incompatible ideologies (although atheists like to pretend that they are simply voicing the authority of pure reason and logic)

The invisibility part might be an issue but otherwise, yes pink unicorns could exist. Science is prepared to treat any evidence for pink unicorns exactly the same way as it treats the evidence for evolution.

I think we missed the part where you established evolution grants credibility to the notion of abiogenesis being evidenced (outside of the cerebral logic constructs of a few persons who also happen to have a professional interest in science)

(And it's funny how creationists scoff at the existence of an invisible pink unicorn while they embrace the idea of an invisible pink God.)

P1 - All pigs can fly;
P2 - all horses are pigs;

therefore all horses can fly.


I guess the vehicle of logic makes anything embraceable, no?

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Is it just me, or did LG's shrug emoticon get smaller?

 

[lightgigantic]

Is it just me, or did LG's shrug emoticon get smaller?

:shrug:

 

[sideshowbob]

so if there is no evidence to speak of, what is the value of this so-called investigation?

How do you propose to get evidence without investigation?

and why try and play such so-called "investigations" as being on par with the investigation of fossils or metal smelting or a host of any other scientific disciplines that is accompanied by "doable" activities?

There are plenty of doable activities associated with abiogenesis research. The synthesis of amino acids was one of the first, followed by peptides and polypetides. Abiogenesis research isn't like creationists dreaming up a bunch of what-ifs. It's real scientists working in real labs with real chemicals.

so once again, in the complete absence of any working mechanisms, the only thing at stake are the egos of a handful of scientists and the hordes of their ardent followers

What's at stake is knowledge about how life, the universe and everything works. That includes, for example, the discovery of insulin and the synthesis of insulin.

Oh you mean like atheists willing to concede that god exists as the summum bonum?

I think most atheists would be willing to accept the existence of God if there was any evidence. Of course, existence itself doesn't imply summum bonum. That would require separate evidence.

IOW what you are talking about are two incompatible ideologies (although atheists like to pretend that they are simply voicing the authority of pure reason and logic)

I'm not talking about ideologies at all and I'm not talking about atheism. I'm talking about science. The essence of science is objectivity - i.e. the removal of biases based on, among other things, ideology. That objectivity is maintained by such things as peer review.

As for "pure reason and logic", in my experience it's the religionists who trumpet pure reason while the science-minded are more likely to use reason only as a tool applied to evidence.

I think we missed the part where you established evolution grants credibility to the notion of abiogenesis being evidenced (outside of the cerebral logic constructs of a few persons who also happen to have a professional interest in science)

You may have missed it because I didn't suggest anything of the kind. I have never relied on evolution to grant credibility to anything. Both evolution and abiogenesis have their own credibility.

I guess the vehicle of logic makes anything embraceable, no?

Exactly. That's why logic is only useful when it operates on reality.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh you mean like atheists willing to concede that god exists as the summum bonum?

I'm assuming your lack of logically similar counter-example was an oversight on your part?

The comment was: "If creationists were willing to admit that it could happen, I don't think anybody would mind them believing that it didn't happen. "

The logically consistent counter from your side should therefore be: "Oh you mean like atheists willing to concede that god could exist as the summum bonum?"

And there are many who concede that god could exist.
They just don't think there is any (or at least they hold no) evidence that rationally leads them to believe that such a god does exist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think most atheists would be willing to accept the existence of God if there was any evidence. Of course, existence itself doesn't imply summum bonum. That would require separate evidence.

Most atheists are only willing to accept phyical evidence as evidence for God, therefore most atheist cannot ever concede that god exists as the summum-bonum.

An excellent psycological barrier.

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Most atheists are only willing to accept phyical evidence as evidence for God....

There are a lot of misconceptions about what evidence is. Physical evidence can be observed by different people with different points of view and they can come to an agreement on what the evidence is, even if they may differ on what it means. What other evidence are you suggesting that people could agree on?

 

[Sarkus]

Most atheists are only willing to accept phyical evidence as evidence for God, therefore most atheist cannot ever concede that god exists as the summum-bonum.

What other "evidence" are you proposing?
And are you sure that they do not accept the evidence? Or is it that they accept the evidence but do not attribute it to something that to them would be irrational?

An excellent psycological barrier.

Or an intellectual barrier to atheism, perhaps. :shrugLG-stylee)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

What other "evidence" are you proposing?

The ''god'' that we are discussing is not defined as physical, so to limit evidence of his existence
to physical evidence is another way of saying God does not exist.
As any physical phenomena can be explained by natural means (regardless of whether or not it's true), God is not
necessary to an atheist mindset.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The ''god'' that we are discussing is not defined as physical, so to limit evidence of his existence
to physical evidence is another way of saying God does not exist.

That is your misunderstanding, then.
If the "god" we are discussing is not defined as physical (nor interacting with the physical) then to limit evidence to physical evidence can lead neither to conclusion of his existence nor of his non-existence.
Certainly there would be no rational reason to lead such people (who seemingly limit the evidence) to believe in this "god", but that is different to them claiming that such a "god" does not exist.
Not to mention the difficulty in explaining how a non-physical entity can in any way interact with the physical without so much as leaving a trace.

As any physical phenomena can be explained by natural means (regardless of whether or not it's true), God is not
necessary to an atheist mindset.

Not necessary does not mean "non-existent".
For some reason you consistently miss that distinction, and label "non-belief" as "belief in non-existence".
Hey ho.

Further, you haven't actually answered the question:
What other "evidence" are you proposing?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Most atheists are only willing to accept phyical evidence as evidence for God, therefore most atheist cannot ever concede that god exists as the summum-bonum.

An excellent psycological barrier.

jan.

Most atheists are probably preconditioned by the religious folks around them who are adhering to ancient myth and superstition. I think that once someone realizes that they are not of that ilk, that's when the "atheist" label get foisted on them. In an alternative-biased society, they would be considered normal and the rest of the people would be considered abnormal, or superstitious. I'm not sure it makes sense to use the term non-superstitious. Perhaps we could call ourselves realists, but this word has taken on a slightly different meaning. I prefer the term "normal". It's normal not to derive truth about the universe from ancient ignorant and superstitious societies. The folks who do could be called delusional, but that word is taken up with a slightly different meaning, too. I would almost prefer "normal" and "misled".

I can't conceive of any meaning of God that does not attach to the ancient superstitions. All of those definitions of God leave the subject (of whether God exists) moot.

How does a religious person detach him/herself from the ancient superstitions?

How is God a concept that can be characterized as anything but superstition?

What other reference point has ever existed for declaring "God exists" other than superstition?

What should we call a person who disbelieves ancient superstition?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The ''god'' that we are discussing is not defined as physical, so to limit evidence of his existence
to physical evidence is another way of saying God does not exist.
As any physical phenomena can be explained by natural means (regardless of whether or not it's true), God is not
necessary to an atheist mindset.

jan.

There is a conflict in your first sentence. You are saying God is not physical yet you use the male pronoun. Yet maleness is nothing more than a trait evolved for the purposed of fertilizing eggs. Maleness is quintessentially physical.

It's not just that God isn't physical. It goes way beyond that. God is said to be like a person, yet disembodied, having a personality, yet without a brain to host it. Most notably, God is said to overturn physical reality "on a whim", which is universally considered both impossible and absurd.

Most often, God is used as a placeholder to explain phenomena for which modern people do not wish to apply science. This version of God is the one most vulnerable to attack by pro-science anti-religion atheists or, as I prefer to call us, normal people.

The slightly more elaborate version of this God is the belief that identifies with pseudoscience. It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, because this kind of believer is saying "I don't want to learn."

I think this is one of the worst personality disorders on earth. It goes way beyond being lazy. This kind of person is afraid to learn something that might alter their preconceived notion of how the physical world works.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is a conflict in your first sentence. You are saying God is not physical yet you use the male pronoun. Yet maleness is nothing more than a trait evolved for the purposed of fertilizing eggs. Maleness is quintessentially physical.

It's not just that God isn't physical. It goes way beyond that. God is said to be like a person, yet disembodied, having a personality, yet without a brain to host it. Most notably, God is said to overturn physical reality "on a whim", which is universally considered both impossible and absurd.

Most often, God is used as a placeholder to explain phenomena for which modern people do not wish to apply science. This version of God is the one most vulnerable to attack by pro-science anti-religion atheists or, as I prefer to call us, normal people.

The slightly more elaborate version of this God is the belief that identifies with pseudoscience. It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, because this kind of believer is saying "I don't want to learn."

I think this is one of the worst personality disorders on earth. It goes way beyond being lazy. This kind of person is afraid to learn something that might alter their preconceived notion of how the physical world works.

so given the insult that you have just made to the vast majority of the population of this planet can you inform the board andn that vast majority,who exactly do you believe is responsible for the technology and industry that is supposedly destroying our little piece of heaven here on Earth? [re: climate change]

God or science?
or are you going to scientifically dispute the reality of climate change?

and you wish those ignorant fools to learn how to do what science has managed to do all by itself?

How many rads did the atmosphere go up by since the disaster at Fukushima, Japan? How many cancerous tumors are or will be the result of it?
Was it's God's fault for bringing an earthquake 9.1 ish on the r/scale.
or was it man's fault for building a high tech, hyper potent nuclear power plant with six reactors on a well known tectonic fault line?

You really need to reconsider your contempt before attacking people for your own failures.

oh and sorry for the rant...
btw... 8 billion people just armed with sticks and clubs can't do that much harm can they.....it takes High tech for WMD's... yes?

so give me "tinker bell" any time and just remember you only have to imagine a happy thought......

 

[Quantum Quack]

A local senior Baptist Minister, Tim Costello, Autralia was being interviewed on TV last night said in effect:

"What God is to me is that feeling , that urge, that need and desire to pick youself up after you've been knocked down a million times. That force that compells you to get back on that horse after you have fallen of."

It take a hell of lot more than science to provide the motivation to go on, even after science is telling us that it has managed to destroy or seriously disable our future.
what makes you get out of bed in the morning? not science I bet...

in the end on your very last breath, it is just you and your God, what and whom ever that may be and I can guarrantee you it aint rocket science...
If we only believed as Science believes we would all commit suicide immediately. For there would be absolutely no reason to go on as life therefore is an act of utter futility.
and you wonder why we have a pandemic of depression occuring especially in the Western hi tech world... sheesh!