I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.
I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.
Peter
no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.
Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.
The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:
If you want to know what caused the BB, then you won't find any answers, as there are none available
Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.
Thanks Atomweaver! I try to say something thoughtful even though I get so exasperated some times and end up being sarcastic. Which I should never do. Anyway for now this seems my main use for my education! I am stuck home with a broken leg so I get plenty of time to post stuff.
I do feel foolish making a serious response to someone who never comes back.
no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.
Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.
The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:
Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.
Oh so you are there! So here we go again.
Your car example is pretty silly. Ridiculous examples really dont advance a discussion.
Try instead thinking about sand blowing and forming the mathematical predictable dunes that follow the principles of physics. Or intricate crystals forming.
Your own existence is so unlikely that it is like you won many millions of lotteries in a row. Impossible? There you are. Explain THAT!
QUOTE:>>>>>>>To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! <<<<<<<<
This is a strawman argument. Who says something was consistently "right"? What does that even mean?
"something cannot come from nothing" is also a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming that it did. Though perhaps the meaning of "something" "came from" and "nothing" could be debated. Such as what is "god"? Where did it "come from"?
Quote: >>>>>>>Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. <<<<<<<<<<
Do you mean by that, that nobody including you can explain the origin of the universe?
So if I cant explain the origin of the universe Its irresponsible to observe nature and explain how a river valley forms? Evolution is like that! It explains how things have changed, just by following the principles of nature AS THEY ARE. Nothing irresponsible about it, kinda strange to say there is.
Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?
no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.
Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
Why would ridiculous examples derived from a parody of evolution have any relevance to the actual theory of evolution
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind?
No. The theory of evolution makes no statement or assumptions as to the origin of life. The theory of evolution only explains how life diversified. This is (in part) why there are so many theistic evolutionists.
Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?).
Most hypotheses of abiogenesis suggest that there was an accumulation of chemical reactions, rather than the "many years and then poof" angle which you suggest above...
It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
"dust particles in a car" is the same analogy as "tornado in a junkyard makes an airplane" and both analogies suffer from a lack of detail; you are skipping steps;
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability.
Which of the steps in the column at right, above, is(are) the improbable one(s)?
To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure
Whatever made you assume that abiogenesis must exclude all errors and missteps in order to be viable? On the contrary, errors are expectedand unavoidable.
is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity!
Please then, show me the math. I find that most people who claim life is "oh so highly improbable" are usually unaware of the massive number of assumptions they make in declaring this so...
It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree?
No idea what you are trying to say...
So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.
Every generation of life survives mutation and thrives. Indeed mutation (imperfect replication) is essential to the perpetuation of life. Without mutation, a population is rendered static, and becomes extremely suceptible to extinction by virtue of its inability to respond to selective pressures. Life without mutation is the mathematically improbable proposition, here...
[quote]The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:
Something cannot come from nothing.
This is a mere assertion on your part. Back it up. Is God something? If God is something, where did God come from? And please, if we're going into the philosophical side of this debate, come up with something a bit more substantive than "that's different, God is eternal". Occam's razor shreds such propositions to bits...
Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question.
You have yet to explain why it should. The theory of evolution is only intended to explain the diversification of species, and it explains it's subject topic with outstanding accuracy. That it fails to explain matters beyond its scope is not a problem with the theory, it is a problem with your mis-application of the theory.
The theory of gravity likewise "fails" to do a good job of explaining the structure of the atom. This is not a shortcoming of the theory of gravity, it is rather a clear indication of the fruitlessness of applying a scientific theory to something beyond it's scope.
This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!!
What equation? Again, please show your math.
The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself.
Evolution doesn't "dismiss" life origins. Evolution has nothing to say on the topic. Do you understand the difference between these two positions?
Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.
(Why the "laser quotes" on evolution?)
This last is quite wrong, the theory of evolution we are discussing here (the biological one) applies only to living things. There are other theories which co-opt the use of the word evolution, but they are entirely separate from this topic.
no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.
Glad to hear it.
Originally Posted by 70x7
Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
They are completely irrelevant, as dead objects have none of the attributes that makes living things evolve. It's like trying to dismiss the Germ Theory of Disease by saying that furniture don't cause leprosy.
Try to realize that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory only. Like all other scientific theories, it can't and doesn't seek to explain anything outside its boundaries. The mechanisms of the theory has to do with diversity of life only, nothing more.
Many professional creationists (Hovind being an obvious example) get confused because the word "evolution" can be used in other contexts, as the word simply means "change over time". But that doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, explaining our current biodiversity, and nothing beyond that.
Originally Posted by 70x7
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
You are again outside the boundaries of the TOE, as the theory can't and doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Do you dismiss the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain how matter arose in the first place? Of course not, as that is outside of that theory's reach.
Evolution kicks in when life exists. How life came to exist is another matter. No matter how life first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that life evolves and has evolved. Likewise, no matter how matter first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that apples fall down.
That said, if you're interested in what science says about the origin of life, the abiogenesis hypotheses featured in the video below offer some interesting ideas. Again, I stress that abiogenesis is not part of the TOE, and it's no where near as well established as the TOE is.
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.
Go to the beach right now and pick up 1 grain of sand. Since there are about 10000000000000000000000 (or 10^22) grains of sand on the planet, the chance that that exact grain of sand ended up in your hand will be 1/10000000000000000000000 (or 10^-22), so practically impossible. Now, pick up 4 more grains of sand. The chance that those 5 grains of sand ended up in your hand will be 10^-110. That's so ridiculously improbable that it shouldn't happen in a million years. So if you tell me that you've just picked up 5 grains of sand, I will vehemently deny it. Such a thing is practically impossible!
Think about it.
Originally Posted by 70x7
Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.
You can dismiss all scientific and non-scientific theories, laws, models, explanations in the world using such argumentation. No theories, laws, models or explanations explain the cause of the Big Bang, because there's no data about it. Is the Cell Theory false because it doesn't explain the cause of the Universe? Are Kepler's laws wrong because they don't explain the cause of the Universe? Is the theory of heliocentrism wrong because it doesn't explain the cause of the universe?
Notice that each and every argument you have used throughout your post can just as easily be applied to dismiss any other theory. Shouldn't that make you think? Here's a wiki explaining confirmation bias. It might be helpful for you to consider whether it's really the evidence, or whether it's your bias, that determines what you accept and what you reject.
Another thing I suggest is for you to shed all your presumptions. Like most, if not all, creationists first joining the debates, you come armed with tons of presumptions, misunderstandings and misinformation about the theory, that you've been subjected to in your life. Of course it's never to late to learn. So read biology and learn what biology actually says, instead of listening to creationists telling you what biology says. Forget what others have told you in the past and start doing your own research and your own thinking.
Peter
Last edited by plindboe; 22nd December 2008 at 08:29 PM.
They are completely irrelevant, as dead objects have none of the attributes that makes living things evolve. It's like trying to dismiss the Germ Theory of Disease by saying that furniture don't cause leprosy.
Try to realize that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory only. Like all other scientific theories, it can't and doesn't seek to explain anything outside its boundaries. The mechanisms of the theory has to do with diversity of life only, nothing more.
Many professional creationists (Hovind being an obvious example) get confused because the word "evolution" can be used in other contexts, as the word simply means "change over time". But that doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, explaining our current biodiversity, and nothing beyond that.
You are again outside the boundaries of the TOE, as the theory can't and doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Do you dismiss the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain how matter arose in the first place? Of course not, as that is outside of that theory's reach.
Evolution kicks in when life exists. How life came to exist is another matter. No matter how life first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that life evolves and has evolved. Likewise, no matter how matter first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that apples fall down.
That said, if you're interested in what science says about the origin of life, the abiogenesis hypotheses featured in the video below offer some interesting ideas. Again, I stress that abiogenesis is not part of the TOE, and it's no where near as well established as the TOE is.
Go to the beach right now and pick up 1 grain of sand. Since there are about 10000000000000000000000 (or 10^22) grains of sand on the planet, the chance that that exact grain of sand ended up in your hand will be 1/10000000000000000000000 (or 10^-22), so practically impossible. Now, pick up 4 more grains of sand. The chance that those 5 grains of sand ended up in your hand will be 10^-110. That's so ridiculously improbable that it shouldn't happen in a million years. So if you tell me that you've just picked up 5 grains of sand, I will vehemently deny it. Such a thing is practically impossible!
Think about it.
You can dismiss all scientific and non-scientific theories, laws, models, explanations in the world using such argumentation. No theories, laws, models or explanations explain the cause of the Big Bang, because there's no data about it. Is the Cell Theory false because it doesn't explain the cause of the Universe? Are Kepler's laws wrong because they don't explain the cause of the Universe? Is the theory of heliocentrism wrong because it doesn't explain the cause of the universe?
Notice that each and every argument you have used throughout your post can just as easily be applied to dismiss any other theory. Shouldn't that make you think? Here's a wiki explaining confirmation bias. It might be helpful for you to consider whether it's really the evidence, or whether it's your bias, that determines what you accept and what you reject.
Another thing I suggest is for you to shed all your presumptions. Like most, if not all, creationists first joining the debates, you come armed with tons of presumptions, misunderstandings and misinformation about the theory, that you've been subjected to in your life. Of course it's never to late to learn. So read biology and learn what biology actually says, instead of listening to creationists telling you what biology says. Forget what others have told you in the past and start doing your own research and your own thinking.
Peter
Well said Peter! Now, if he can indicate that he understands / will concede even one point we will know if this is worth continuing.
sorry, I used the car irrelevant examples because my small mind cannot fathom your abilities to contemplate quantum physics. I try to dumb it down for myself.
Im glad to see that this has all raised your fancies so much!
Best response of the rebutals goes to...
"Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?"
NO!!!!!! THATS WHAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT IS ABOUT!!!!!!!
I see Occams Razor (Contact is a great movie isn't it?) as being the answer to Creation. Not one against it. With God, the answer is so simple!!!!
Saying God is also bound to the "something before nothing" phrase is a contraction in itself. God is outside all of us and all that we know. That mind blowing concept needs to be realized before the debate can even go further. That is the basis of Creation. In the beginning there was God. PERIOD. Nothing created God. He always was, is, and ever shall be. Its like asking what the color red smells like? Smell and color do not fit together logically...just like the question of Gods orgins. (I know, its a tough concept and it blows minds, but if you think that every answer for all time can be found with what we know as humans, you are sadly mistaken).
I also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another.
sorry, I used the car irrelevant examples because my small mind cannot fathom your abilities to contemplate quantum physics. I try to dumb it down for myself.
Im glad to see that this has all raised your fancies so much!
Best response of the rebutals goes to...
"Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?"
NO!!!!!! THATS WHAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT IS ABOUT!!!!!!!
I see Occams Razor (Contact is a great movie isn't it?) as being the answer to Creation. Not one against it. With God, the answer is so simple!!!!
Saying God is also bound to the "something before nothing" phrase is a contraction in itself. God is outside all of us and all that we know. That mind blowing concept needs to be realized before the debate can even go further. That is the basis of Creation. In the beginning there was God. PERIOD. Nothing created God. He always was, is, and ever shall be. Its like asking what the color red smells like? Smell and color do not fit together logically...just like the question of Gods orgins. (I know, its a tough concept and it blows minds, but if you think that every answer for all time can be found with what we know as humans, you are sadly mistaken).
I also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another.
Merry Christmas!
What is tough is for you to get the idea that there is no magic.
Or to do a bit of self evaluaiton: " also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another. "
You started out giving stupid ridiculous examples of things for the expresspurpose of applying mockery. Then you say you didnt, and that others are being 'defensive'. Wow.
Now look in the mirror and say those words again.." also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another. "
oh... on 'something cant come from nothing: you were trying to apply that concept where it doesnt apply. And no tricks of words you can pull out will make it not apply to your 'god' just as much as it does to anything else.
Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question.
I guess you must be really upset with chemistry for not telling you from where atoms come.
This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!!
Evolutionary theory is about the way living things change over time. In science, theories are accountable only for the things they make predictions about. If you want to imagine that God poofed the first living things magically instead of the way He says in the Bible, that would also be compatible with evolutionary theory.
I guess you must be really upset with chemistry for not telling you from where atoms come.
Evolutionary theory is about the way living things change over time. In science, theories are accountable only for the things they make predictions about. If you want to imagine that God poofed the first living things magically instead of the way He says in the Bible, that would also be compatible with evolutionary theory.
Thing is tho with the dedicated creationist, to concede even the most minor point, once they have decided tho' some alchemy that it is an integral part of their faith, to concede even one tiny detail would be to threaten with collapse their entire belief system.
If the bible says Pi=3.0 then so be it. At least in those days or with the magic cubits they used. Or something, anything. i have heard several totally different explanations all presented as bible-backed fact.
Linear Mode
