On Evolution & Creation

[Audie]

What I've observed is that many science skeptics have never learned the basics of science, or the basics of the disciplines in question, or even what science is. Maybe they were homeschooled or educated in a religious school that didn't teach science or critical thinking.
In any case their posts indicate they're unequipped to discuss the subjects in question. They don't know either what is known, how it's known, or how it's been validated. It leads to all kinds of misunderstanding as well as the egregious personal incredulity frequently expressed.

Advanced mathematics is baffling if you've never learned basic arithmetic.

They dont need to study your know more than any scientist on earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does ya see me carrying on debate with said personage.

I think I'm enjoying that weird phenomenon where you can't look away no matter how horrible it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You both seem to understand that you are unlikely to teach science to creationists, and that there has to be other reasons to participate in these discussions. For me, I enjoy and benefit reading the posts of critical thinkers with some level of expertise somewhere, from researching and writing posts myself, and from observing the faith-based thinker's habits and patterns of thought. I liken it to a university course complete with lecture, homework, and lab respectively.

And she is a rare example of a creationist who seems sincerely interested in learning.

You, too.

Not to dishearten you, but in my experience, your chance of learning this material starting from ground zero well along in years is very low however sincere you are. Would that it were otherwise, but after years of message boarding, I just don't see creationists learning anything. As TagliatelliMonster noted, the same ones are still making the same errors.

There's more to know than just facts, and a good understanding of any science begins with the fundamentals and builds on that, which occurs over years in minds that know how to study and learn - another acquired skill, as is critical thinking.

You really need it all to become knowledgeable in any academic discipline. What you'll find is that as you read facts about evolution or any other academic subject is that the ideas won't accumulate or form an intellectual edifice as they would if you had a framework or scaffolding of basic understanding to hang them on.

And that's fine. The knowledge wouldn't be useful to you. You've gotten this far not having it. Have fun trying, and maybe you can do better than what I described, but you shouldn't be surprised to find that what you read here doesn't really change your understanding of anything as seems to be the case with most RFers asking about basic scientific information.

Agreed, but what's your purpose for saying so? Science still has much to learn, and some questions likely will never be answered definitively.

The usual reason we see comments like that is to make an implied ignorantiam argument, that is, if science can't answer the question, there must be a god.

Sure you do. If you can believe any particular idea by faith, you can believe any other idea by faith as well. Faith requires no effort. It is unexamined belief, which is so easy that children with rudimentary language and intellectual skills can do it. In fact, it requires education and training to learn to avoid it.

What you're doing is trying to attach a word from your world to mine. Others like to refer to science or humanism as religions, or respect for them as worship.

There you go. See how easy it was for you to say that. All one need do to believe by faith is choose to do so.

It's not an issue of others not being articulate. These people are all pretty articulate. If you want to learn material like this, as I told anther poster above, you'll need to make a concerted effort over years. You can start by reading a few of these books. Remember, your education is YOUR responsibility, not that of the teachers.

View attachment 97842View attachment 97843

You probably don't know the theory. If you did, you would know why the theory hasn't been jettisoned.

Despite how I may sound, I'm a perpetual optimist and think it is never too late to learn. But you make a good point about the hurdles that would have to be overcome. I would add that one needs to come to it with as much of an open mind as can be mustered. Many things are not intuitive and require much consideration. Knowledge is not fast food and anyone with the expectation that simply reading a book is going to provide them with an instant education will be greatly disappointed.

An online forum might not be such a bad place to learn some things, but many don't seem so interested in learning as they are in reading their own posts (the equivalent of hearing their own voice) from what I've seen.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know.

Some people guess at answers, believe their guesses, and call them facts, but guesses aren't knowledge. Some people speculate, meaning that they understand that their ideas are hypotheses and so don't call them correct - just possible, like the multiverse hypothesis and abiogenesis. I would add gods to that list. We can't call them impossible or rule them out, but the idea adds no explanatory or predictive power.

Your comment had nothing to do with mine that appeared in the quote section above your words to me, which were "None [no gods] are apparent, nor are they needed in any scientific theory." Did you want to discuss that?

As I alluded, we have scientific hypotheses regarding the origin of the cosmic seed and life that don't include gods just as none of our scientific theories have gods or benefit by inserting one. Science won't place conscious agents in any scientific narrative until there is direct evidence that a god exists, meaning uncovering a finding that can only be explained or is best explained (explanatory power) by positing an intelligence to account for it.

Famously, upon hearing his latest ideas, Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his work. Laplace answered, "I had no need of that hypothesis." That remains true today.

Sorry that my comment was not in conjunction with your remark. I agree guesses are not knowledge. To me that is clear. The point that you make about no gods being apparent or are necessary in any scientific theory to me is a bit off the mark as far as I am concerned. Obviously not for atheists or agnostics or even those who profess to worship a god of sorts but really give their own definitions about it. Meaning as we see what God likes, doesn't like, cares about, doesn't care about, etc. As it can be said, some things are not a Bible teaching, and that is where I will not agree. Perhaps we can discuss more about this another time. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

He did not know how they evolved; but that was nearly 150 years ago. There were a lot of things we didn't know back then, which we know now.

True that Darwin did not know how eyes came to be. Or, as you say, evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

In reference to life and viruses, here is one summary by a scientist. I notice, however, it has been said to be a philosophical discussion based on what constitutes life. Nevertheless, here it is, in part. The rest can be found at the link.
(Regarding the workings of viruses) -- "Once they infect, or take over, a host, they hijack the host cell to reproduce. Viruses have some of the features of a living entity in that they can reproduce and mutate. However, they can't move on their own or survive outside of a host body."
Yes now, I find that interesting and have questions about it. How Do Viruses Mutate, and What Is the Role of Epidemiology?.

 

[Valjean]

True that Darwin did not know how eyes came to be. Or, as you say, evolved.

And now we do understand the process, so the irreconcilable complexity is demonstrated to be reducible, and the mechanisms involved unconscious and without intent.

 

[YoursTrue]

And now we do understand the process, so the irreconcilable complexity is demonstrated to be reducible, and the mechanisms involved unconscious and without intent.

I don't think so. When you say that the mechanisms involved unconscious without intent, that doesn't make sense yet to me. Not because it's unconscious movement, as you say, but I don't think you can determine how the movement really happened. Maybe you can, I don't know. Do you think you can determine how this unconscious movement you speak of happened?

 

[icant]

We don't know.

Thats a good answer so quit arguing like your answer is the only possible answer there could be.

There is not evidence the BB happened.

There is no evidence that life began from non-life.

# 3 Why am I supposed to believe it happened then?

Your comment had nothing to do with mine that appeared in the quote section above your words to me, which were "None [no gods] are apparent, nor are they needed in any scientific theory." Did you want to discuss that?

Did that come from your post. I didn't even notice it until now.

But that is similar to Hawking we proved God was not necessary.

I have not met any people that claim to be atheist who has any need for God.

That is the reason they don't need Him as they are their only God. That was the reason the woman in the Garden ate the forbidden fruit. She wanted to be just like God.

 

[John53]

There is no evidence that life began from non-life.

So the biblical account of it coming from dirt is wrong. Good to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

,

To the best of my recollection this was 11 years ago and he said it needed to be replaced with a Quantum theory of everything.

One thing that you do not understand about the sciences is that when one replaces a theory with another that does not really mean that the earlier theory was wrong. Was Newton wrong about gravity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True that Darwin did not know how eyes came to be. Or, as you say, evolved.

Actually he did. You forgot that you used lying sources. If one kept reading Darwin's work that was quoted out of context he goes on to explain how eye could evolve.

I do not think that you meant to lie by saying that, but you did "lie by proxy". You swallowed the lies of others when you already know better than to do that and acted as if they were right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats a good answer so quit arguing like your answer is the only possible answer there could be.

There is not evidence the BB happened.

There is no evidence that life began from non-life.

Wrong, but then you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Are you willing to learn?

# 3 Why am I supposed to believe it happened then?

Did that come from your post. I didn't even notice it until now.

But that is similar to Hawking we proved God was not necessary.

I have not met any people that claim to be atheist who has any need for God.

That is the reason they don't need Him as they are their only God. That was the reason the woman in the Garden ate the forbidden fruit. She wanted to be just like God.

You should follow the evidence. But you not only ignore the evidence, you probably are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Argentbear]

Thats a good answer so quit arguing like your answer is the only possible answer there could be.

There is not evidence the BB happened.

Except for the cosmic microwave background
The Doppler red-shift of light from distant galaxies
The elemental make up of distant galaxies
The temperature of ancient nebulas
The relationship between a galaxy's distance from Earth and its speed
and about a dozen other things

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And she is a rare example of a creationist who seems sincerely interested in learning.

Or so she keeps claiming. But the evidence doesn't support it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But...viruses remain viruses, don't they? Anything to show viruses mutate to something other than viruses?

Seriously?

On Evolution & Creation

From what I see here on these forums, few if any here who embrace the theory of evolution can answer questions from those who do not believe it, except to call those who do not accept the theory as taught by evolutionists ignorant and the like. And you honestly believe this? What do you think...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think so. When you say that the mechanisms involved unconscious without intent, that doesn't make sense yet to me. Not because it's unconscious movement, as you say, but I don't think you can determine how the movement really happened. Maybe you can, I don't know. Do you think you can determine how this unconscious movement you speak of happened?

Yes.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

No consciousness or intent required.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously?

On Evolution & Creation

From what I see here on these forums, few if any here who embrace the theory of evolution can answer questions from those who do not believe it, except to call those who do not accept the theory as taught by evolutionists ignorant and the like. And you honestly believe this? What do you think...

www.religiousforums.com

Yes.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

No consciousness or intent required.

I do not doubt that there is no "consciousness" there about the mutations, etc. of viruses. Do you have anything to offer, however, that viruses become something other than viruses?

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously?

On Evolution & Creation

From what I see here on these forums, few if any here who embrace the theory of evolution can answer questions from those who do not believe it, except to call those who do not accept the theory as taught by evolutionists ignorant and the like. And you honestly believe this? What do you think...

www.religiousforums.com

I believe I am asking a legitimate question about whether viruses have been said by scientists to mutate to something other than viruses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not doubt that there is no "consciousness" there about the mutations, etc. of viruses.

Why the emphasis on just viruses? Mutation happens in all genetic entities.

Do you have anything to offer, however, that viruses become something other than viruses?

Is this a trolling question? I'm going to assume it is. I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to assume otherwise.

BTW, when are you going to answer my questions?

On Evolution & Creation

No. There was not a time when the universe did not exist and a later time when the universe began to exist. You mustn't think of the universe as having a beginning in time. Time itself, or, rather space-time, is as much an integral part of the universe as mass-energy, so the universe has existed...

www.religiousforums.com