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.
ONLY the uber religious argue against evolution. There is no "romance" involved in science. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution backed up by physical evidence and supported by reasoned logic.
Find me one just one person that argues against evolution that does so with scientific backing without ANY religious dogma attached! (good luck)
I am not Religious, so I disagree that only religious people argue against evolution. And I certainly disagree that there is no " Romance" involved in science, many scientist Love their profession. And Love is Romance in my book of understanding.
Find me one scientist that is not romantically involved with his or her work. And many of them have kissed Frogs in their minds. Longing for their work to evolve into things it is not.
So many people are attracted to myths and embrace them with a romance that takes a life of its own. I am reminded of the tale of the princess who kissed a Frog in hopes that it turned into her Prince. And many take this same approach to Religion, Atheism, and things like the theory of evolution. They embrace it as one thing, with the romance of turning it into something it is not. In order to satisfy themselves. They want it to be what it is not.
And this ability in human Consciousness is the birth of things like " Theory." Not that Theory is a thing to avoid, but its the Romance of that Theory which really gives it the Power. Before the research is even complette, the Frog Syndrome often sets in, and turns the Theory into something that its not.
This has happened to Religion, to Government Policys, to Groups which form themselves after a Frog Romance, and start believing in things which really are not so.
And I want to go into that.
Peace.
Yep.
The entire basis of modern biology is based on something that really is 'not so'...
And why all the derivatives of biology, from medicine to nutrition to agriculture are stagnant, if not going backwards. Because they entire underpinning of all those disciplines is just 'not so'...
Anyway, thank you for a very appropriate and very concise -- though very unintended -- example of someone desperately believing something that is just 'not so'!
Biogenesis is proof that evolution is a theory, and still proof that allelic frequency cannot begin itself from zero. All frequency is at its base is a mathematical frequency, which must have a beginning of frequency and a cause of that beginning. No allelic frequency can produce itself, thus evolution didnot begin itself or this universe.
If Evolution must be true, it must be associated with the orgin of all things, because it suggest all things evolve. So I reject the effort to seperate the theory of evolution from the beginning of the universe, that is contridiction.
Peace.
First, abiogenesis is as separate a theory from evolution as gravity is from atoms. What about that can't you understand?
Second, the rest of your argument is flawed. Evolution begins once life is here, regardless of how that life came into being (abiotic or supernatural). Saying that your attempts to disprove biogenesis then disprove evolution would be the same thing as me saying that the fact that early religion were based on fallacy (the moon being a god) mean that your religion is false. One does not inherently follow the other.
Even if there was special creation, it evolved and continues to do so. End of story.
Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility, again it suggest that zero plus zero can equal one, and then produce further addition, which is absurd.
And really " Theory" is a strawman term, no theory can really be proven, it can only be changed from a theory to reality by the facts proven. The facts must ALREADY exist! But in the human mind, a theory, or a Frog can be kissed, and then turned into something really impossible. And the impossibility can be embraced as a " Prince."
Peace.
You keep changing the definitions of words, I hope its due to ignorance. Is it?
Theories do not get "proven" and become facts. That just is not how science works. Theories are explanations of observations supported by a body of evidence, are falsifiable and make predictions. That is how they are defined in science.
Why do you feel that you get to change definition to suit your arguments?
I am not Religious, so I disagree that only religious people argue against evolution. And I certainly disagree that there is no " Romance" involved in science, many scientist Love their profession. And Love is Romance in my book of understanding.
Find me one scientist that is not romantically involved with his or her work. And many of them have kissed Frogs in their minds. Longing for their work to evolve into things it is not.
Peace.
Again, more issues with basic definitions. Have you heard of peer review? Do you know what it means?
While it is far from a perfect process it ensures that no one person, despite the "love" of their research, makes claims that cannot be supported through empirical and repeatable evidence. So while scientists are human and thus subject to human nature, as a methodology, Science recognizes is and puts checks and balances on the system.
Maybe you should do some reading. Might help with your vocabulary issues.
I am not Religious, so I disagree that only religious people argue against evolution. And I certainly disagree that there is no " Romance" involved in science, many scientist Love their profession. And Love is Romance in my book of understanding.
Find me one scientist that is not romantically involved with his or her work. And many of them have kissed Frogs in their minds. Longing for their work to evolve into things it is not.
Peace.
You are not religious?? Come on man I have read your other posts where you use everything under the sun as proof that god exists. Yet you say you're not religious??? You seem to imply that if a scientist enjoys their job that they will then delude themselves in to believing in things that have no basis in fact. I think YOU a transferring YOUR delusions onto science and scientists.
I have yet to see another scientific findings argued on this message board other than those those that involve creation. Why do you think that is?
You are not religious?? Come on man I have read your other posts where you use everything under the sun as proof that god exists. Yet you say you're not religious???
I think he might fall into the category that believes that "i'm not religious because [every religion except the one i subscribe to] is false, but [my religion] is true"
ha! ha! ha! The (non) arguments put forward by the OP don't warrant a serious response as they are meaningless. He's basically using the old school yard tactic of name calling. "Hey, you, evolution! You're a frog!" I'm usually willing to put up a defense when creationists make an argument so that others reading the thread will not be taken in and possibly spread their falsehoods. But, this! I doubt that anybody will be spreading this 'argument' around; in fact, it really doesn't matter if they do as they will look as silly as the OP.
Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility, again it suggest that zero plus zero can equal one, and then produce further addition, which is absurd.
And really " Theory" is a strawman term, no theory can really be proven, it can only be changed from a theory to reality by the facts proven. The facts must ALREADY exist! But in the human mind, a theory, or a Frog can be kissed, and then turned into something really impossible. And the impossibility can be embraced as a " Prince."
Peace.
The creationist calculations that suggest abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility are clearly incorrect.
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
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.
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.
