Questions to Evolutionists

[Erik Mesoy]

civ2, it seems as though your argument can be summed up like this:
"I don't care if you have a million pieces of evidence, one piece of evidence is unreliable and you can't put them together without relying on other pieces of evidence."

This is completely unscientific.

 

[civ2]

I'm tired of this.
Most people are so stuck to their "beliefs" (of WHATEVER source) that it's impossible to make them change their mind.
So I won't try it any more.
Be stupid if you wish so.
(That wasn't a troll. )
The future will show who's right.

 

[warpus]

The future will show who's right.

I really doubt it - There will always exist people who would rather ignore logic and evidence, preferring to believe in superstitious legends instead.

 

[Sidhe]

Is that God or science you mean I know which sphere I'll be watching, since I'm unlikely to see God laying down what's real, I'll stick with what I can see rather than what I believe, if you want to believe science is unholy and inconsistent without even bothering to find out what it believes that is entirely your prerogative, later.

 

[Truronian]

Civ2, your mistake is assuming that because neither (large scale) evolution nor creation have been observed, they are equally likely to have occured (or not occured). This is bologne. In science (and in every day life), evidence makes things more likely to true. Evolution has tons of evidence, while creationism has none. The score is basically Creationism 1 : Evolution 1x10^10.

 

[Turner]

Most people are so stuck to their "beliefs" (of WHATEVER source) that it's impossible to make them change their mind.

Including yourself, I've seen.

 

[Pokurcz]

Sidhe

Seemingly your under the impression that I am of the same persuasion as Civ2, wich is quite wrong.
I only pointed out that his only stated source of knowledge about paleontology where picture books for children, a rather constricted source from a sientific point of view, wouldnt you say?

 

[civ2]

Truronian
There are lots of evidence for Creation (as you named the anti-evolution ).
It's just that you usually prefer to be blind.
The very existance of our world implys it being created.
I think I once discussed why since time has the beginning it's obvious it was also created - I just can't find that thread right now...

Guys, how many of you are REAL scientists?
Maybe few...
(Maybe none I'd think - but I'm not sure of course.)
All you can do is show links to OTHERS' nonsenses...
I won't discuss it anymore - I'm tired of explaining the difference between real facts and assumed facts...

The future will show

And it will.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Truronian
There are lots of evidence for Creation (as you named the anti-evolution ).
It's just that you usually prefer to be blind.
The very existance of our world implys it being created.

Straw man and a completely different debate.

I think I once discussed why since time has the beginning it's obvious it was also created - I just can't find that thread right now...

What has this got to do with anything?

Guys, how many of you are REAL scientists?
Maybe few...
(Maybe none I'd think - but I'm not sure of course.)

carlosMM is.

All you can do is show links to OTHERS' nonsenses...

Do you know the words "original research"? Better yet, do you know why Wikipedia bans it?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That is not a good example of evolutions because all you are doing is killing off the non resistant bacteria leaving those that are resistant and allowing them to just multiply by themselves without the interaction to the non-resist strain of the bacteria.
Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

I'll ignore the obviously creationist website.

If bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance isn't an example of evolution, I don't know what is. The process you're describing above is true of ALL evolution. Every species evolves into another when a subset of its own becomes extinct through selection pressure. If that's not evolution, then evolution has never existed. The point is, how do you think it got to be that way?

The reason that there are some bacteria survive this way and others don't is because those that survive have a genetic mutation that allows them to resist the drug while those that don't die. They don't just magically gain the ability to fight off a toxin like you learn to fight off a mugger. Whatever arsenal bacteria have to handle their environment is contained in their genome. Mind you, that genome is very small. Bacteria don't "think up" new ways of dealing with threats like you learn to handle adversity. Resistances may include a change in the receptor that binds the drug, so that there's no binding and no effect. Another form of resistance is the production of an enzyme that renders the drug ineffective. Another is the production of special "pumps" that expel a drug out of the bacterial cytoplasm. These alleles have been gained even against wholly synthetic antibiotics, so that you can't claim that the bacteria have seen it in nature before when they never existed in nature.

Some bacteria have the ability to store extra-genomic DNA in small fragments called plasmids. These plasmids do often code for antibiotic resistance genes. Many bacterial species can share all or portions of their genome, or plasmids, through a kind of bacterial sex where they extend an "organ" (looks a lot like a penis) called a sex pilus. This has even been seen to occur between different bacterial species. Still, the process by which these genes appear is still the same -- selection pressure. Evolution is still at work here.

To non-biologists, biologic systems must seem like magic. There's really nothing to it. The central dogma of molecular biology is: genome --> transcription --> protein. This rule is rarely broken.

 

[Truronian]

Truronian
There are lots of evidence for Creation (as you named the anti-evolution ).
It's just that you usually prefer to be blind.

No, there is not. Maybe there is just about enough to add up to that 1 I gave creationism .

The very existance of our world implys it being created.

I which case the very existance of a creator implies a creator-creator (ie. something that created our creator). What created God?

 

[warpus]

The very existance of our world implys it being created.

By the same logic:

The very existence of a creator implies that it was created.

If you can accept the possibility of the existence of a creator that has existed forever - you must also accept the possibility of a Universe that has existed forever.

 

[nihilistic]

Newton wrote some Laws of Motion. Einstein wrote a Special Theory of Relativity. These documents both seek to identify formulae that predict the motion of objects in the universe. The difference in terminology reflects a reduction in arrogance rather than a change in purpose.

Yes they are essentially the same but they have different connotations. The term "law" not only indicates arrogance but has the overtone of a top-down deductive reasoning system that isn't compatible with the spirit of the scientific method. "Law" makes it seem as if it is because of the "law" that objects behaves the way it does, while "theory" makes it clearer that it is because that objects have been observed to behave they way they do that we described it as such.

So what is your term to identify the underlying fundamental patterns, that science seeks to discover, that dictate the way the universe behaves?

The word 'theory' is good enough I think. For some sciences (notably physics) the "underlying fundamental patterns" of today most likely will not be the "underlying fundamental patterns" of tomorrow. Just consider how we went from solutions to atoms to subatomic particles ... What is fundamental today may well be interpolable tomorow.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe

Seemingly your under the impression that I am of the same persuasion as Civ2, wich is quite wrong.
I only pointed out that his only stated source of knowledge about paleontology where picture books for children, a rather constricted source from a sientific point of view, wouldnt you say?

I quoted the wrong person my mistake, sorry.

 

[mdwh]

Ehem...
Which scientific knowledge came to you NOT from either books or teachers?

How it gets to me is irrelevant, the question is how the knowledge was first derived.

Did you ever dig a fossil?
Did you fly to space?
Did you partake in any experiment outside your school/university?
Answer for most people (and probably you too) is NO!!!

Once again - do you seriously think there is some mass global conspiracy where false information is published in books and taught in schools? Anyone who conducts these experiments (which includes vast numbers of people such as students) are somehow part of the conspiracy? And yet, somehow, this conspiracy of lies still produces things which work, such as the computer you type on? Or are you telling me it's more likely that your computer is powered by magic pixies?

So you do "believe" in the information given by books - only those were written by people YOU CHOSE to think being right.
That's the main difference between you and me - we simply approve different sources.

Rubbish - my criticism of religion is *nothing* to do with the reliability of the source. As I said, I'm quite sure that the priests believe what they say.

The issue is with the primary source. I consider the scientific method to be valid way of learning about the universe. I consider writings thousands of years old to not be a valid way. Science books and teachers have nothing to do with this comparison.

Have you been to Antarctica(or Africa? or Sun?)?

So what, you think these are made-up places?

Isn't it your belief?

Not all beliefs are equal - the question is how much evidence to support this. So, there is a large amount of evidence that I am sitting in front of a computer. There is zero evidence that I am sitting in front of an invisible teapot. Do you seriously consider those two beliefs two be on the same level?

I wonder how you can do anything in life if you cannot accept any beliefs. If someone phones you, do you refuse to believe who they are? If someone tells you something, do you never believe them? Do you never go on holiday in case your destination of choice doesn't exist?

 

[AlanH]

The word 'theory' is good enough I think. For some sciences (notably physics) the "underlying fundamental patterns" of today most likely will not be the "underlying fundamental patterns" of tomorrow. Just consider how we went from solutions to atoms to subatomic particles ... What is fundamental today may well be interpolable tomorow.

Scientists seek ever more precise theories to describe the patterns we see in the behaviour of the universe. The fact that our theories fall short of a 100% accurate prediction of these patterns simply demonstrates we have more work to do.

I am suggesting that the existence of predictable patterns indicates the existence of fundamental rules that drive the universe, and they are there waiting to be discovered. I called them "laws", and started a terminological debate that went nowhere, but if we can get past that fruitless discussion I'm intrigued by the suggestion someone made earlier that this discovery is not what science is trying to achieve.

 

[Bill3000]

Laws are not more important than theories, and the fact that people use the nonscientific definition of theory in scientific debates sucks. A law is simply a mathematical formulation of a relation of different physical properties, such that the force of a spring is directly proportional to the extension. (Hooke's Law) No actual spring will obey Hooke's Law completely, yet it is probably one of the most useful formulas in physics because of the fact that a lot of systems can be approximated as such. But the point of a law is not to be a "fact", but to be an approximation that works.

 

[civ2]

Truronian
One thing should be understood - time itself was created along with the universe - it's a physical property.
It's illogical to ask what was "before" Creation - there wasn't yet time!
And you can't apply physical time to God - He's not bound by anything especially physical properties.
The most stupid question (my personal opinion ) is "who created God?" since it shows the obvious ignorancy of the asker in the very "idea of God".
God is the Source of everything - and creating implys one "source" making another "result".
But the very first Source can't have its own source - or you should then just "go one level" backwards and call that source "the first".

mdwh
The only thing I'm trying to say is that most scientific theories are taken credible by people that didn't create them.
It's not about conspiracy it's about "to err is humane".
I just apply something similar to what Atheists say about religion to science - reversing arguments.
There's enough evidence for religion too - not nessesarily in books or some objects - many people have that evidence derived from their very life and experience.

 

[Truronian]

Truronian
One thing should be understood - time itself was created along with the universe - it's a physical property.
It's illogical to ask what was "before" Creation - there wasn't yet time!
And you can't apply physical time to God - He's not bound by anything especially physical properties.
The most stupid question (my personal opinion ) is "who created God?" since it shows the obvious ignorancy of the asker in the very "idea of God".
God is the Source of everything - and creating implys one "source" making another "result".
But the very first Source can't have its own source - or you should then just "go one level" backwards and call that source "the first".

If God does not need a creator, then why does the universe? Your selectively applying your logic.

 

[civ2]

Truronian
Easy answer: God is BEYOND both logic and universe.
Logic is also a part of creation btw.
Universe is limited whilst God is not.
Our logic is also limited so don't overestimate it.