Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Loudmouth]

Answer the question, do we know how first life was created?

No, we don't.

Answer my question.

Do we have to know the ultimate origin of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in order to know that lightning is produced by thunderclouds?

 

[justlookinla]

No, we don't.

Answer my question.

Do we have to know the ultimate origin of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen in order to know that lightning is produced by thunderclouds?

No we don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

No we don't.

Then we don't need to know he origin of life in order to know how life changed once it was here.

 

[justlookinla]

Then we don't need to know he origin of life in order to know how life changed once it was here.

Thus my statement, science is ignorant concerning what life came from. They have plenty of guesses and suppositions though.

 

[whois]

Then we don't need to know he origin of life in order to know how life changed once it was here.

then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?

evolution is all about a natural cause for life and its diversity.

 

[Loudmouth]

then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?

I would only ask that they provide evidence that this is the case.

evolution is all about a natural cause for life and its diversity.

It only deals with the diversity part.

 

[whois]

I would only ask that they provide evidence that this is the case.

isn't that what is being asked of you?
to provide evidence?
and what do you say?
we don't need to.
and you don't have a problem with that?

It only deals with the diversity part.

yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.

 

[Loudmouth]

isn't that what is being asked of you?

I am not claiming that I know how life started.

Those who claim that God is responsible are making a positive claim, and need to provide evidence.

yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.

You guess?

 

[whois]

I am not claiming that I know how life started.

Those who claim that God is responsible are making a positive claim, and need to provide evidence.

i believe that in order to show someone wrong, you have to show you are right.
evolutionists have staked no claims on the origins of life, therefor the creationists claim it.
why does that bother you?
frankly i could give a ....... about a god.

You guess?

it's a good one.

 

[Split Rock]

yes, and it's my guess it's because science has found abiogenesis to be impossible.

You guess?

Pretty much, yes. Of course, if whois had bothered to read On the Origin of Species, he might realize that from the start evolution was about explaining.... wait for it... the Origin of Species, not the origin of life.

 

[Split Rock]

i understand that.
look what happened to this woman.
she presents research that went against the then current dogma, yes dogma.
they scorned her so much that she just threw up her hands and quit publishing her work.
there was absolutely no cause for this to happen, especially when she had the research as proof.
being sceptical is one thing, but what happened to mcclintock went further than that.

what would cause these people to shun this research?
scientists do not rely on buzzwords like "ridiculous" or "ludicrous".
my guess is that it smashed their world view of evolution.
by the sound of it, i assume it meant the end of "gradual change".
also, it would imply some kind of intelligence at work because some genes are never mutated, hox genes i believe.

Scientists are people, and people do have biases. If its hard to believe, even if true, it will take a while for acceptance, especially if it does change a paradigm. In science, however, acceptance does come.

Case in point. You have been asked before how her research "smashed their view of evolution," and have refused to explain. You have not shown why geneticists were slow to accept transposons because of the theory of evolution. Yet, you continue to maintain this was the case. I submit that you are refusing to let go of a paradigm you are fond of. Just like those scientists.

 

[whois]

. . ., even if true, . . .

it's true.

Case in point. You have been asked before how her research "smashed their view of evolution," and have refused to explain.

why else would they be sceptical?
even to the point where she stopped publishing?
she had the research, the evidence that won her a nobel prize.
tell me, why would they not accept her work if it didn't smash their world view?
it's my guess it put an end to the "gradual change" bit.

You have not shown why geneticists were slow to accept transposons because of the theory of evolution.

you have to ask those scientists why they did what they did.

I submit that you are refusing to let go of a paradigm you are fond of. Just like those scientists.

this isn't an isolated incident you know.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

my guess is that it smashed their world view of evolution.

Then you are not a very good at making guesses regarding evolution, probably because you don't know anything about it.

If did know more about the TOE, I wouldn't have to tell you that you are demonstrably wrong.

Do you really think the Templeton Foundation the ICR, and other religious groups, would just ignore something that would "smash" the world view of evolution?

That is ludicrous, and thus so is your claim.

by the sound of it, i assume it meant the end of "gradual change".
also, it would imply some kind of intelligence at work because some genes are never mutated, hox genes i believe.

As I pointed out, you are demonstrably wrong.

Again, if she had that kind of evidence, the ICR and Templeton Foundation, and people like Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind would be all over it. She would be world famous by now. But she's not. That should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[justlookinla]

What is this?

 

[whois]

Do you really think the Templeton Foundation the ICR, and other religious groups, would just ignore something that would "smash" the world view of evolution?

i wouldn't know, i'm not a groupie.

Again, if she had that kind of evidence, the ICR and Templeton Foundation, and people like Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind would be all over it. She would be world famous by now. But she's not. That should tell you everything you need to know.

and again, i'm not a groupie.
who are these people you mention?
were they around when all this took place?

 

[Split Rock]

it's true.
why else would they be sceptical?
even to the point where she stopped publishing?
she had the research, the evidence that won her a nobel prize.
tell me, why would they not accept her work if it didn't smash their world view?
it's my guess it put an end to the "gradual change" bit.
you have to ask those scientists why they did what they did.
this isn't an isolated incident you know.

Once more... it was because it smashed a paradigm concerning genetics and DNA (the genetic material)... not evolution. You are laboring under the misconception of the "evolution world view" creationist paradigm... yet another precious paradigm that should be tossed out.

 

[Kylie]

Thus my statement, science is ignorant concerning what life came from. They have plenty of guesses and suppositions though.

Since the origin of life is irrelevant when talking about how life changes, I can only conclude that you are trying to derail the thread.

then you shouldn't get all upset when someone suggests a god is responsible for this life, right?

Yes, evolution will work just as well if there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life as it would if a God had started the whole thing off and let it go.

evolution is all about a natural cause for life and its diversity.

Woah, here you are going on about CAUSES again. Evolution does not say anything at all about the CAUSE or ORIGIN of life. We've already been over this. Why do you keep saying these things when you have been told that they are wrong?

 

[whois]

Once more... it was because it smashed a paradigm concerning genetics and DNA (the genetic material)... not evolution. You are laboring under the misconception of the "evolution world view" creationist paradigm... yet another precious paradigm that should be tossed out.

and what, exactly, would this paradigm be?
accumulating small changes perhaps?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

i wouldn't know, i'm not a groupie.

Come on, that's a cop out and you know it.

Are you seriously saying that religious organizations wouldn't care if proof existed that would destroy the Theory of Evolution?

who are these people you mention?

Google them? They are very well funded YECers who spend most of their time denying the Theory of Evolution, or looking for evidence that would prove it wrong.

were they around when all this took place?

If you know about it, then it is highly unlikely the they wouldn't have. Why don't you email a few of them just in case they haven't.

If you do, and it's true, we should be hearing about it on the evening news almost immediately as some of these organizations and people have strong ties to FOX News.

 

[whois]

Come on, that's a cop out and you know it.

it is?
i don't have an agenda, i am not on anyones side.

Are you seriously saying that religious organizations wouldn't care if proof existed that would destroy the Theory of Evolution?

is that what drives you in respect to evolution, that the other guy might win?
actually, it seems like the entire argument is along those lines.

Google them? They are very well funded YECers who spend most of their time denying the Theory of Evolution, or looking for evidence that would prove it wrong.

like i said, i wouldn't know.
i'm not interested in agendas.