U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2009, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,834 posts, read 4,040,704 times
Reputation: 3002

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
This is standard foder of the pro-evolutionist. Abiogenisis is a different field. It has been separated out because evolutionist including Darwin could not explain it. The "swept it under the rug", so to speak.
It is a separate field of study because it has nothing to do with Natural Selection. It is agreed on that life started, hence "we are here". Those who study evolution do not concern themselves with this fact. What they are trying to figure out is the diversity of life, not how the spark of life started.

 
Old 02-19-2009, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,764,476 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
This is standard foder of the pro-evolutionist. Abiogenisis is a different field. It has been separated out because evolutionist including Darwin could not explain it. The "swept it under the rug", so to speak.
No it hasn't. It is called honesty and integrity. When science hasn't answered a question they, unlike creationists say "We do not know yet"
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,764,476 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Yes, I know evolution.

Dawkins said this with his own mouth.

"Kind" is in reference to the bible. The term species is badly defined word. Kind refers to a created kind. This would be the dog/wolf kind or the Horse/donkey/zebra kind, etc...

No conspiracy, just the problem with isotopic dating and the problems associated with fitting the data into a uniformatary time frame.
Darwin said no such thing.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness. Charles Darwin
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:10 PM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,158,046 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
At what point did evolution move from "hypothesis" to "theory"? What repeated "tests" had been done?
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,504,712 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
At what point did evolution move from "hypothesis" to "theory"?
That's actually an interesting question. It's hard to pinpoint the exact date. Obviously biologists weren't all instantly convinced after reading the Origins, and just as obviously they are convinced now, but where in between does the hypothesis become a theory? The definitions of both terms aren't precise enough to tell.

The rediscovery of Mendel's genetics (around 1900) was definitely a major advancement, since the existence of such a mechanism was predicted by the theory of evolution and fitted perfectly. Around 1940, a number of studies (eg. Evolution - The Modern Synthesis by Huxley, 1942) showed how various independent fields of biology all contained evidence in favour of the theory of evolution. At this point evolution was already considered a theory, a major part of biology, and wasn't under any serious doubt.

So I'd say it took about 40 years for evolution to make the leap from hypothesis to universally accepted theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
What repeated "tests" had been done?
Once again I'll link to the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page, in the vague hope that you'll eventually read it. You will find a discussion of what constitute "evidence" or "testing", and what has been done.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,090,378 times
Reputation: 3718
Default Mulderism! The New World Religion! (i.e.: The Truth is Out There!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
Creationists hypothesize that the universe exists because a deity created it. This is not a theory, as there are no facts to back it up, and it is not currently (if ever) testable.

Will they ever have a meeting of the minds over two simple words...theory and hypothesis?
Yes, and they say that "Since it's here, and the bible clearly says how it happened, ergo, this is the truth, easily observed." Fallacious on its face, but typical of those uneducated in simple theory of testing and argument.

Will we ever get closer to the truth about the origins of the Universe, Zug? I think so, because while we'll probably never be able to go and observe precisely what happened at the exact moment of Creation, if we have some hypotheses (in the correct use of that term) of what would result as a consequence of some suggested model, and then we go and DO observe those little events or consequences, then we are more brave in our speculation. The more of these downwind evidences we find, the more likely accurate is our Creation hypothesis. That's what urged early hypotheses about evolution theory before it became Evolution Law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
That seems so counterproductive to getting anyone to listen to them though. I mean, the first step to having an intelligent conversation with anyone is to present your arguments using the correct terms.
No can do, zug.... NIKK then goes on to prove the point. Not only is he surprisingly poorly educated about what evolution is, he clings, as is anticipated, in spouting outdated or erroneous information. He acceeds to adaptation, but will not accept that Evolution, through thoroughly understood, testable and reproduceable methods, is a fact. In a true technically accurate scientific definition, it IS how species have arisen.

Evolution as an established process explains how simpler or different existing organisms accomplished two distinctly different outcomes:

1) A huge increase in complexity, from the original five pieces of Lego™ simply arranged into a useful building block, on to a passable model of the Empire State Building or a jumbo jet.

3 DUPLO Building Plates | 0-2 | LEGO Shop

leading to...

2) Vast differentiation, complexity to meet an ecological opportunity, and thus...

Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon™ | Ultimate Collector Series | LEGO Shop

Note that, logically, the complexity issue, once established in an early progenitor organism, simply carried on through all other off-branching species, so to see it all now, out there in our current world, and to be excessively awe-struck by it all, is actually to see and acknowledge it as only having happened once.

To which NIKK, with an angry red-face, will stutter that the second one, The Millenium Falcon, can't possibly have arisen from the first. Too complex. This clearly demonstrates with amazing clarity an abject and desperate lack of understanding of what is now simple grade-school genetics.

As a scientist, during one of my graduate science degrees, I learned exactly how to propose an hypothesis, a question. And then to follow it with it's accompanying null-hypothesis statement. A sort of "anti-hypothesis". Then I set out to prove or disprove my hypothesis. This is the absolute non-arrogance of true scientific curiosity. The honest use of a simple tool. Amazxing how it's led to endless insulting and hostile attacks.

Darwin didn't know zilch about genetics. All he did was to posit that something, some system, was likely working that allowed organisms to migrate their abilities, possibly their physical outward appearance, their ability to obtain / attack / track down / reach for certain key food items, or to digest certain nutrients their existing population could not. Once that was accomplished, when a primitive predatory complex carnivore branched out to become, over vast millenia, sufficiently differently appearing organisms (a cougar, a lion, a wolf, a bear, a seal, etc.), voila:

Speciation.
As in "acquired, recorded and now consistent adaptations to the ever-changing environment".

Remove the opportunity and the organisms may well, yes, re-convene over time. Doesn't disprove anything, NIKK! You wish!

When it's minor, it can be classified as a sub-species, even a "race". sub-species are just en-route to full speciation, but it's also a gray definition. If it makes you happy, NIKK, we'll just call a fox an "adapted wolf". But regardless, the point evolutionist biologists make is that we now fully know exactly HOW such appearance and physiological changes do happen.

Remember, the CXtian idea we argue about is the "Poof" concept. One lazy afternoon, your God creation simply popped it all out, T-Rexs and a couple of white people, sans navels, and all the rest. Preposterous on its face, and now, easily disproved because, (I'm sooo tired of repeating it) we know exactly how the various species came about.

And soon enough, we'll prove that life started up by a chance accumulation of inorganic and organic (our definition, BTW) molecules that led, inexoribly, to some ability at the subatomic level to interact. Obviously if it led to a simple ability to pro-create, then it did just that, and by definition, we had a complex cluster of molecules able to recreate themselves in a stable way.

You seem so awe-struck by the fact that "Since we're here, it's too amazing, and so, there's gotta have been a God Creator!" How so? Alternately, if our appearance was simply chance, then we're only here because it did happen. If it hadn't happened, we'd not be here to discuss this. Voila. Distictly less circular that your arguments! Egg/chicken? Chicken-egg? Pre-egg = early chicken-ish organism, evolved into cluck-cluck. BTW, evolutionary science tells us that eggs, representing a sort of primitive unicellular organism with special adaptations, came first. Argument over.

Life arose.

Now, perhaps some passing alien PhD student stopped by, hovered over the primordial broth and spilled his pet project solution into that sea. Now and again, he stops by to check it out, and we all say we saw strange lights in the sky!

Your God, has provided not so much progress in the "miracle demo" biz. At least the alien visitors flash their positional lights once in a while to tantalize us and egg on our growing curiosity!

Our various scientific definitions, BTW, may not be subsequently meddled with by anti-evolutionists and anti-scientists. Get your hands off! You're not approved to tinker and change things after the facts to support your non-scientific stuff! Until you learn the safety and behavioral rules, you're banned from the lab. You do claim to hate them all anyhow, so git out!

Anyhow, Darwin's amazing insight taunted other inquisitive minds to "inquis", and, since the rules for scientific questioning and peer-review processes to keep it all scrupulously honest, were just being worked out, it all came together. Rather slowly by today's standards, but nonetheless... it evolved as a system, just like species.

So now, with a staggering and bewilderingly powerful array of tools, coupled with the world-wide communications wonder of The 'Net, the answers to long-held questions are piling up so fast that you have to be a specialist focused on tiny areas to keep up.

Certainly absent ANY reading of even Scientific American once a year for an hour, the layman is not qualified to do anything more than place a casual comment or politely ask one of those specialists a question.

For example, NIKK's ill-educated dismissal of ALL the current archeological dating techniques just proves my point. He, like Darwin, but absent the inquisitive mind, knows ZILCH about dating methodologies, but unlike Darwin doesn't care to learn, else I could point him at some irrefutible info. But he suggets how it DID happen ("Poof!"), and yet offers not one iota of empirical, testable evidence of it other than "Well, it's here, so there!"

And to this we should all bow down?

To decry and dismiss all curiosity and findings with an arrogant hand-wave? Inconcevably narrow-minded. To mis-use "hypothesis" and "theory" nowadays? Which stump do these people live under?

Even if these terms are correctly used, by any and all rational standards, Evolution is no longer, by science's definition, an hypothesis. Since biologists defined "species", and have now exactly and precisely elucidated (even for the layman) the process by which chance mutations occur, as well as their rate of occurrence [proven and documented, and which, mathematically, does allow, easily, for all the mutations necessary to go from a uni-celled organism up to the chimps.], we now KNOW how it all works. No need to speculate, to conject, to wonder. All that's left is to educate. There's the rub!

(BTW: I'm now pretty sure we're an embarrassingly poor "advancement" from the chimp species, despite the denials of our direct genetic and behavioral relationship to those chimps in the humiliatingly silly Scopes Money Trial. Perhaps we could get a refund?)

The accurate recording and subsequent replay via DNA/RNA [easily proven and documented] results in either minor species adaptations en-route to a new species [again, documented and proven], or a completely outwardly different organism [fox versus wolf]. There's no argument anymore.

Denial is futile!

Except in those whose life world-view requires that even the smallest dent in their spiritual armor not be allowed. Then, it's to war we'll go, and to h$ll with the truth!

NIKK, I offered last fall to guide you through a several-post review of how science works to truthfully answer simple questions (a sort of redundant statement I agree...). I still have it all here in seminar form (I actually gave this seminar once to my Geology class, for technical, not anti-evangelical reasons, but it's quite educatin' as to how science comes to it's evil conclusions, if'n you're ready now).

I suspect though, that if someone handed you a red rose that conflicted with your beliefs, you'd rise up on your hind legs and shout that "No! It's BLUE, I tell you! Your statement that it's RED is only an hypothesis!"

Hmmm....
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:37 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,916,619 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan View Post
That's actually an interesting question. It's hard to pinpoint the exact date. Obviously biologists weren't all instantly convinced after reading the Origins, and just as obviously they are convinced now, but where in between does the hypothesis become a theory? The definitions of both terms aren't precise enough to tell.
Thank you for that. For now I'll call both evolution and creationism "theories".
Quote:

The rediscovery of Mendel's genetics (around 1900) was definitely a major advancement, since the existence of such a mechanism was predicted by the theory of evolution and fitted perfectly. Around 1940, a number of studies (eg. Evolution - The Modern Synthesis by Huxley, 1942) showed how various independent fields of biology all contained evidence in favour of the theory of evolution. At this point evolution was already considered a theory, a major part of biology, and wasn't under any serious doubt.
Likewise, I can point to evidence suggesting creationism.

Quote:
So I'd say it took about 40 years for evolution to make the leap from hypothesis to universally accepted theory.

Once again I'll link to the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page, in the vague hope that you'll eventually read it. You will find a discussion of what constitute "evidence" or "testing", and what has been done.
Pick your favorite and let's talk about it.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,504,712 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Yes, I know evolution.
Sorry, but it is obvious to everybody here (even kdbrich, I imagine) that you do not. Your confusion with abiogenesis betrays you, I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
Please provide your evidence for this affirmation.
Dawkins said this with his own mouth.
I am not satisfied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Darwin said no such thing.
Psst, Dawkins, not Darwin. Yeah, I know, it can get confusing .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
"Kind" is in reference to the bible. The term species is badly defined word.
I'm glad you agree. It really is. Modern science uses much more precise definitions, and unless you pick one or make your own statements such as "each animal kind will produce its own kind" is meaningless and cannot be debated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
No conspiracy, just the problem with isotopic dating and the problems associated with fitting the data into a uniformatary time frame.
No evidence whatsoever, but extra helpings of undefended affirmations. I give up.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:18 PM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,158,046 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Thank you for that. For now I'll call both evolution and creationism "theories".
Sorry, you cannot use theory in connection with creationism until you show it to be observable, testable, and repeatable.

Quote:
Likewise, I can point to evidence suggesting creationism.
You haven't managed to do this yet. We'd be interested to see what you consider as "evidence" though.
 
Old 02-19-2009, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,764,476 times
Reputation: 12223
Yeah, I have not yet seen any testable evidence whatsoever, presented here or anywhere else for creation by any god or gods.....I'd love to see it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top