UNBREAKABLE

[OldWiseGuy]

Where do you get this nonsense from? I don't understand how you can remain so ignorant after all the information you have been spoon fed by members here. It's inconceivable to me! You are erecting strawmen constructed of imaginary straw. Astounding!

Evolution theory is still a work in progress, with the most important piece still missing...how it all began. You've got a story with no beginning.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution theory is still a work in progress, with the most important piece still missing...how it all began.

"How it all began" is not within the scope of the theory of evolution.

It's like complaining that the instructions for assembling an IKEA table don't include descriptions on how to harvest lumber. It's a silly objection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"How it all began" is not within the scope of the theory of evolution.

It's like complaining that the instructions for assembling an IKEA table don't include descriptions on how to harvest lumber. It's a silly objection.

And yet they keep searching, lately around those deep ocean vents. They're not looking for the last piece of the puzzle, but the first. They've built a beautiful airplane but haven't figured out how to make it fly.

 

[VirOptimus]

And yet they keep searching, lately around those deep ocean vents.

FYI; There are scientific questions outside of the ToE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

FYI; There are scientific questions outside of the ToE.

Not this one.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not this one.

From your description it sounds like its an abiogenesis question which is outside the ToE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From your description it sounds like its an abiogenesis question which is outside the ToE.

That's like saying that clay is outside of the art of pottery.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's like saying that clay is outside of the art of pottery.

No it isnt. The ToE explains biodiversity when life is already present, abiogenesis deals with the formation of life.

 

[pitabread]

And yet they keep searching, lately around those deep ocean vents. They're not looking for the last piece of the puzzle, but the first. They've built a beautiful airplane but haven't figured out how to make it fly.

That airplane analogy makes even less sense. In the case of the theory of evolution, it has real-world application. In that sense, they'd designed, built and flown the airplane in question.

What you're trying to do is engage in a reductionist argument by way of suggesting that if we don't everything then we can't know anything.

In a similar vein, there is a lot of study around the theory of gravity and practical applications thereof. Yet, scientists still don't exact know what gravity *is*.

 

[pitabread]

That's like saying that clay is outside of the art of pottery.

In terms of the origin of the clay, it is. I just go down to my local art supply store and buy a block from the shelf. I don't need to know how that clay was mined in order to use it to make a pot.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not this one.

You are not a scientist.
You have no meaningful training in science.
You have, based upon your posts in this forum, no real understanding of science.
You don't understand the scientific method.
You don't understand hypothesis formation.
You don't understand hypothesis testing.
You don't understand what a theory is.
You have almost no idea what theory of evolution asserts.
You have no idea of the details of evolutionary theory.

As a consequence you have no right, no right whatsoever, to make claims as to what is, or is not part of the Theory of Evolution. To make such claims is arrogant, offensive and ignorant. Please desist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not a scientist.
You have no meaningful training in science.
You have, based upon your posts in this forum, no real understanding of science.
You don't understand the scientific method.
You don't understand hypothesis formation.
You don't understand hypothesis testing.
You don't understand what a theory is.
You have almost no idea what theory of evolution asserts.
You have no idea of the details of evolutionary theory.

How do you know me so well?

 

[Tone]

You are not a scientist.
You have no meaningful training in science.
You have, based upon your posts in this forum, no real understanding of science.
You don't understand the scientific method.
You don't understand hypothesis formation.
You don't understand hypothesis testing.
You don't understand what a theory is.
You have almost no idea what theory of evolution asserts.
You have no idea of the details of evolutionary theory.

As a consequence you have no right, no right whatsoever, to make claims as to what is, or is not part of the Theory of Evolution. To make such claims is arrogant, offensive and ignorant. Please desist.

Sounds like the ole clergy/laity divide...

 

[Speedwell]

That's like saying that clay is outside of the art of pottery.

The origin of clay is outside the art of pottery.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sounds like the ole clergy/laity divide...

In my experience the laity listen to the clergy. That's not happening here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are not a scientist.
You have no meaningful training in science.
You have, based upon your posts in this forum, no real understanding of science.
You don't understand the scientific method.
You don't understand hypothesis formation.
You don't understand hypothesis testing.
You don't understand what a theory is.
You have almost no idea what theory of evolution asserts.
You have no idea of the details of evolutionary theory.

As a consequence you have no right, no right whatsoever, to make claims as to what is, or is not part of the Theory of Evolution. To make such claims is arrogant, offensive and ignorant. Please desist.

I'm just playing off things that scientists have written on the subject, namely that there are pre-requirements for evolution that haven't been explained, nor indeed can be, imo.

If you don't like your atheist theory to be questioned on a Christian forum why not just go to an atheist/evolution forum where you will feel more at home?

 

[Tone]

In my experience the laity listen to the clergy. That's not happening here.

That's religion for ya...

 

[pitabread]

namely that there are pre-requirements for evolution that haven't been explained, nor indeed can be, imo.

This is only the case if evolution is necessarily dependent on the explanation of the former (e.g. the origin of life). In practice, this is not the case.

All that we need for a theory of evolution is that life exists and evolves. And based on observation of reality, life appears to exist and evolve.

 

[Speedwell]

Science is still struggling with the simpler aspects of evolution, namely the 'common ancestor'. They've built a complex theory on a premise that they cannot prove. They've got the 'chicken' but cannot find the 'egg'. And if they find the egg they cannot find the chicken.

Evolution works whether there is a common ancestor or not. The way in which it works and the evidence we have of how it also worked in the past strongly suggests that there was a common ancestor to all life. It is the only reasonable inference from the data we have.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution works whether there is a common ancestor or not. The way in which it works and the evidence we have of how it also worked in the past strongly suggests that there was a common ancestor to all life. It is the only reasonable inference from the data we have.

You seem to know about all the common ancestors up the evolutionary tree, but the original one escapes you. Whyzat?