Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

Ok but isn't it possible that God took similar elements and kept working on them until He accomplished man?

Well, you'd first have to demonstrate that such a thing is possible. Have you demonstrated that a god exists?

Just to be clear, are you positing the idea that God created all the creatures on earth at some point in time, and then over the course of hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, slowly tweaked all of those creatures over and over again until "he" ended up with human beings? And that human beings were "his" end goal, meaning "he's" finished with all the tweaking now? Or are you simply positing the idea that God created evolution and let it unfold naturally?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you define a living thing? Science has not yet agreed on an all-encompassing definition.

Indeed. I'm not terribly upto date with this subject though, but I do seem to remember that there are quite a few things that lay people will generally see as being "alive", where science is kind of split...

Like virus strains and such. That there are aspects there that are missing, which are generally seen as attributes of "living". But it's been to long to recall properly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wouldn't that mean branching out from what is thought of as the first cell emerging from non living matter? Jesus did say if the disciples didn't speak, the stones would. Luke 19:40.

It means that, "groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness" which demonstrates common ancestry.

I don't know what Jesus has to do with it.

 

[leroy]

Why?

Because I would argue that all the evidence indicates that life can not come from none life naturally

But I don’t what to talk about abiogenesis in this thread. If you want to talk about abiogenesis feel free to make a new thread, describe your favorite naturalistic model for abiogenesis, and exampling why is that model better than ID .if you open a new thread I would be happy to participate.

 

[leroy]

For a designer, god or otherwise, to have a "productline" end up in a nested hierarchical pattern, that entity would have to go extremely out of its way to accomplish that. It's an extremely inneficient, stupid, resource wasting way of accomplishing things. Any engineer who would do such things would be instantly fired.

Conversly, such a pattern is the ONLY pattern that the process of evolution can result in.


So, on the one hand we have an existing process that can ONLY result in such a pattern.

"?

You don’t understand that we live in a multiverse (a set of infinite universes) some universes have life organized in something that looks like a nested hierarchy (NH), others have life organized in other patterns (or no pattern at all) we simply happene to live in a universe where we do have something that looks like a NH, if we wouldn’t live in such a universe we wouldn’t be wondering about the NH that we observe (this is the anthropic principle)

 

[leroy]

Can you define a living thing? Science has not yet agreed on an all-encompassing definition.

Can you define “dog”? Can you define “chair”? Can you define “computer”? Can you define “box”? most words lack an all-encompassing definition.

 

[gnostic]

You don’t understand that we live in a multiverse (a set of infinite universes) some universes have life organized in something that looks like a nested hierarchy (NH), others have life organized in other patterns (or no pattern at all) we simply happene to live in a universe where we do have something that looks like a NH, if we wouldn’t live in such a universe we wouldn’t be wondering about the NH that we observe (this is the anthropic principle)

The multiverse model is only proven mathematically possible, but it has never been verified as probable with testable scientific evidence.

This is why multiverse model falls under theoretical model, and not as falsifiable and tested “scientific theory”.

The multiverse model is very popular among theoretical circle, but it isn’t science. And the only multiverse model can be “science” if you have evidence that can be verified conclusively, and as of today, no such evidence exist.

There is more to science than just theoretical complex equations or theoretical numbers, because realities are decided by evidence, not by maths alone. And multiverse doesn’t meet the “EVIDENCE”-department.

The only times, multiverse is “reality”, are in science fiction novels, or in sci-fi movies/tv shows, or in comics.

 

[leroy]

The multiverse model is only proven mathematically possible, but it has never been verified as probable with testable scientific evidence.

This is why multiverse model falls under theoretical model, and not as falsifiable and tested “scientific theory”.

The multiverse model is very popular among theoretical circle, but it isn’t science. And the only multiverse model can be “science” if you have evidence that can be verified conclusively, and as of today, no such evidence exist.

There is more to science than just theoretical complex equations or theoretical numbers, because realities are decided by evidence, not by maths alone. And multiverse doesn’t meet the “EVIDENCE”-department.

Yes I know, but if atheist can use multiverses to explain away the arguments for ID, It seems fare that YEC can also use the same fallacious logic to explain away difficult questions.

 

[gnostic]

Yes I know, but if atheist can use multiverses to explain away the arguments for ID, It seems fare that YEC can also use the same fallacious logic to explain away difficult questions.

Now you are being a fool, because science has nothing to do with atheism vs theism.

Atheism isn’t science, and neither is theism.

In fact all of these “-ism”, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, dualism, spiritualism, etc, they are all not science.

And isn’t just YEC, OEC (Old Earth Creationism) isn’t science. And Intelligent Design isn’t science, and the Discovery Institute isn’t scientific organisation.

Intelligent Design is simply just Christian creationism in guise.

 

[dad]

No, there's nothing magical about chemical processes.

There is when you claim they may disappear so that is why we have no evidence for them! There also is when you claim that life on earth is wholly due to such a non evidenced series of events in the far past!

 

[dad]

Stop confusing science with science fiction.

It is not science to claim a disappearing act for which you apparently have no evidence for even in the present time, was how life on earth got here and diversified!

 

[gnostic]

It is not science to claim a disappearing act for which you apparently have no evidence for even in the present time, was how life on earth got here and diversified!

Disappearing act? What on earth are you talking about?

Evolution is about biodiversity, not about how how life came about...which is still a mystery, but it is a mystery that Abiogenesis is trying to answer, not Evolution.

They are two different fields of studies, and only Evolution is scientific theory, while Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

You cannot expect a dentist to perform brain surgery, any more than you would expect neurosurgeon to do dentistry. They are two different fields, just as Abiogenesis and Evolution worked in two different fields.

Evolution involved working with life where genetics are involved, because small changes are passed on to descendants, through genes and DNA/RNA.

Abiogenesis is trying to think of process that get life started from inorganic matters, and that involved no genetics.

 

[ecco]

Indeed. I'm not terribly upto date with this subject though, but I do seem to remember that there are quite a few things that lay people will generally see as being "alive", where science is kind of split...

Like virus strains and such. That there are aspects there that are missing, which are generally seen as attributes of "living". But it's been to long to recall properly.

Overlaying visible colors with stuff, around 400 nm we have quarks - around 500 we have simple molecules, around 700 we have cockroaches.

The is no precise dividing line any more than there is a precise dividing line between blue and red.

 

[ecco]

Can you define “dog”? Can you define “chair”? Can you define “computer”? Can you define “box”? most words lack an all-encompassing definition.

Are you admitting that your comment...

Because I would argue that all the evidence indicates that life can not come from none life naturally

...is nothing more than BS?

 

[ecco]

You don’t understand that we live in a multiverse (a set of infinite universes) some universes have life organized in something that looks like a nested hierarchy (NH), others have life organized in other patterns (or no pattern at all)

Would you care to present some evidence to support your allegation?

 

[dad]

Disappearing act? What on earth are you talking about?

Evolution is about biodiversity, not about how how life came about...which is still a mystery, but it is a mystery that Abiogenesis is trying to answer, not Evolution.

You said this

"it's also possible that abiogenesis continuously happens - even today. There's actually a scientific idea I think about that... it states that this newly created life would almost immediatly be consumed by already existing life.."

So, in other words you claim it appears but suddenly disappears because it got eaten before you can detect it right?

They are two different fields of studies, and only Evolution is scientific theory, while Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

Irrelevant word games since both are fairy tales. One more be more elevated within the constraints of your religion/science but who really cares what you call it?

You cannot expect a dentist to perform brain surgery, any more than you would expect neurosurgeon to do dentistry. They are two different fields, just as Abiogenesis and Evolution worked in two different fields.

The original fairy tale diverged into two separate tales. So what?

Evolution involved working with life where genetics are involved, because small changes are passed on to descendants, through genes and DNA/RNA.

In this nature, yes they are, again, so what? Small changes happening in this nature have zero to do with the origin of life/man/species etc. We do not even know (and have reason to suspect otherwise) that genetics was the same in Noah's day. So why even talk about genetics, it is not relative to the origin issues.

Abiogenesis is trying to think of process that get life started from inorganic matters, and that involved no genetics.

We know, for those who have their head shoved so far up the fable factory that that fantasy seems important.

 

[leroy]

Would you care to present some evidence to support your allegation?

The beauty of the anthropic principle is that I dont even have to support it

 

[ecco]

The beauty of the anthropic principle is that I dont even have to support it

The beauty of being an Indoctrinated Fundamentalist Christian is that you believe you don't need to support your silly notions.

 

[leroy]

The beauty of being an Indoctrinated Fundamentalist Christian is that you believe you don't need to support your silly notions.

If atheist/naturalists use the anthropic principle and multiverse to explain away hard questions, why can YEC do the same?

 

[ecco]

If atheist/naturalists use the anthropic principle and multiverse to explain away hard questions, why can YEC do the same?

What are atheist/naturalists? Do Christian/naturalists also exist?

What hard questions are explained away by the anthropic principle? Who uses the anthropic principle to explain away hard questions?

What hard questions are explained away by multiverse theories? Who uses multiverse theories to explain away hard questions?

Yes indeed. YECs do handwave away hard questions, like why is there absolutely no evidence for a global flood. Some YECs even make up silly nonsense stories about time being different "back then" or "out there" to justify a fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

The bottom line is you believe stories written down 4000 years ago by goatherders who believed the earth was flat and tree branches caused spots on sheep and goats.