Something from Nothing

[JohnR7]

Evolution always starts with something. Then though small changes they say it "evolves" into something else. I fail to see how a variation of something can be considered a origin. Only creation really attempts to explain the origin or the beginning. Evolution tends to only deal with the various changes that takes place over time.

 

[LogicChristian]

Evolution always starts with something. Then though small changes they say it "evolves" into something else. I fail to see how a variation of something can be considered a origin. Only creation really attempts to explain the origin or the beginning. Evolution tends to only deal with the various changes that takes place over time.

Yup, but the theory doesn't claim to explain anythign it can't. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin. Seeing as it is a science and not a religion, there isn't anything wrong with the theory explaining only what it claims to and not everything else.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is abiogenesis that deals with the subject of origins, not evolution. These are two different fields.

 

[h2whoa]

It is abiogenesis that deals with the subject of origins, not evolution. These are two different fields.

It seems apparent that this is an issue of deliberate ignorance. I know for a fact that John has seen this issue dealt with time and time again so to continue with this seems almost dishonest on his part.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Evolution tends to only deal with the various changes that takes place over time.

And this, by sheer coincidence, is just what scientists always said.

 

[Dannager]

I know for a fact that John has seen this issue dealt with time and time again so to continue with this seems almost dishonest on his part.

Almost dishonest?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Evolution always starts with something. Then though small changes they say it "evolves" into something else. I fail to see how a variation of something can be considered a origin. Only creation really attempts to explain the origin or the beginning. Evolution tends to only deal with the various changes that takes place over time.

Correct. This is what Darwin said from the very start. From the last sentence of Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

 

[Freodin]

I fail to see how a variation of something can be considered a origin.

Is that so difficult to see?

Perhaps, from a philosophical point of view, there is no origin at all. (At least if you assume an eternal existence of something that is considered the source of everything.)

But that is not the human way of thinking. Humans classify things, and classification means that you have distinctive features for these classes.

So if you vary or combine something so that it results in something "different", this can be considered an origin.

You were a carpenter, you made things. All the things you made were a variation of wood - and still your art was the origin of things.

 

[JohnR7]

You were a carpenter, you made things. All the things you made were a variation of wood - and still your art was the origin of things.

I would expect a American to say something like that, because they tend to want to tear something down and start all over again. I often recycle wood. My wife will get mad when I pick up a pile of used wood that they threw out in the garbage. But she is pretty happy for what I am able to turn it into. Yesterday I was working with a peice of wood that was being used for it's third time around. Of course this is all becoming a thing of the past because we are running out of wood and a lot of what they use now is glue and saw dust. They grow whatever they can grow and after ten or twelve years they grind it up and glue it together into something.

So how much of your black forest is left over there?

 

[LittleNipper]

It is abiogenesis that deals with the subject of origins, not evolution. These are two different fields.

Yes, and abiogenesis is not a science, because it has never created life out of an inanimate object. But wait , that means that evolution isn't a science because evolutionists have been able to either advance or revert any specie into an entirely new specie or back to a previous specie------ever. So what have those fruitflies shown us.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Yes, and abiogenesis is not a science, because it has never created life out of an inanimate object

Sorry, just because something hasn't produced a positive result doesn't meant it is not science. If this were the case there would be no science period, because they all start with nothing and work forward. Thats sort of the point.

By this logic, before Newton was there no gravity? Did Radio waves not exist before we harnessed them?

The theory always comes before the result. Unless you are talking Theology, which tends to work the other way. You're inability to distinguish the two, has not, nor will it ever, invalidate science or more specifically Evolution, Abiogensis, or the Big Bang.

 

[Freodin]

I would expect a American to say something like that, because they tend to want to tear something down and start all over again. I often recycle wood. My wife will get mad when I pick up a pile of used wood that they threw out in the garbage. But she is pretty happy for what I am able to turn it into. Yesterday I was working with a peice of wood that was being used for it's third time around. Of course this is all becoming a thing of the past because we are running out of wood and a lot of what they use now is glue and saw dust. They grow whatever they can grow and after ten or twelve years they grind it up and glue it together into something.

So how much of your black forest is left over there?

I´m not sure I can follow your line of thought here - but I usually cannot, so no worries.

Just to clarify my point: you have wood - you do something to the wood - you have a "table" or a "chair" or whatever. You have something new, something that was not there before, something that is yet only a variant of what you started with.
Still you have an "origin".

And thank you, the Black Wood is doing fine.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sorry, just because something hasn't produced a positive result doesn't meant it is not science. If this were the case there would be no science period, because they all start with nothing and work forward. Thats sort of the point.

By this logic, before Newton was there no gravity? Did Radio waves not exist before we harnessed them?

The theory always comes before the result. Unless you are talking Theology, which tends to work the other way. You're inability to distinguish the two, has not, nor will it ever, invalidate science or more specifically Evolution, Abiogensis, or the Big Bang.

Just because Creationism makes more sense doesn't make it any less of a science. The theory always comes before the result. Of course there was gravity before Newton, they just didn't know what to call it. Now, they make up stories as to why there is gravity and how it might work and call it science..... That is as long as they leave GOD out of the picture...... so it would seem....

 

[Tacticus]

Just because Creationism makes more sense doesn't make it any less of a science.

No, the inability of it to produce testable hypotheses and the lack of evidence as a basis make it less of a science(in fact they make it pseudo-science).

Now, they make up stories as to why there is gravity and how it might work and call it science.....

No, they postulate hypotheses that are predictions based on... wait for it... evidence. More importantly these hypotheses can be tested and falsified.

That is as long as they leave GOD out of the picture...... so it would seem....

The supernatural is not testable and therefore cannot figure in any proper science. Any theories based on a science that includes the supernatural cannot be falsified and therefore fail as valid theories.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Just because Creationism makes no sense doesn't make it any less of a science.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[Jamza]

The beginning of life is a complex topic, but scientists do not conclude life came from nothing. The suggested first step is the formation of amino acids, the components of proteins, from I believe random collisions of nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; gases which were present in the pre-biological atmosphere of the Earth. Though this has been proven to be possible in laboratory conditions, it is difficult to accurately recreate the real conditions hundreds of billions of years ago.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Just because Creationism makes more sense doesn't make it any less of a science. The theory always comes before the result.

Science works exactly the other way round - you make an observation, then you attempt to explain it. Creationists start with an unsupported belief and then try to make the observations fit to what they think is right.

 

[JohnR7]

Just to clarify my point: you have wood - you do something to the wood - you have a "table" or a "chair" or whatever. You have something new, something that was not there before, something that is yet only a variant of what you started with.
Still you have an "origin".

As I was trying to say, I specialize in remodeling and renovation. I take something that is old and broken down and make something new and in some cases different out of it. I suppose you could say I have a "origin" but I started out with something that was disfunctional and I make it into something functional.

Recently I have been working more and more with scrap wood, so that maybe more along the line of what you are refering to here in your post.

 

[JohnR7]

And thank you, the Black Wood is doing fine.

I am glad to hear that. I did a little research and learned that the great Cedar trees of Lebanon are doing fine also. It is nice to know that there are people making a effort to preserve them and not allow them to go extinct. I am sure there are business men who would be more then happy to give you a bid on the whole forest.

 

[Amora]

Science works exactly the other way round - you make an observation, then you attempt to explain it. Creationists start with an unsupported belief and then try to make the observations fit to what they think is right.

creationism is not science, because as has been posted above, the ideas brought forth are untestable. but creationism is CERTAINLY observing first and explaining later.
observation: the world exists
explanation: God created it (or started it off, or set the parameters for the BB, or determined the physical laws that exist as we know them.)