Questions ....Answers?

[ttechsan]

This confuses me so I decided to ask. Does the fact that someone I totally disagree with on many subjects mean they can't ask a legitimate question that needs a serious answer? I dislike BO as prez as much as anyone could for so many reasons (not race). Does that mean, despite all that, he can't ask a good legitimate question that doesn't deserve an answer or reply?

Why I ask is this. It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself. Thus they will totally disregard the question as if it can't be legitimate due to who ask it. I don't get this.

Why do both creationist and evolutionist act so often as if the other side can't ask a legitimate question so it is ignored or made fun of just because they are not on the same side as the one replying. Doesn't it need a serious answer and response too? Certainly not a personal attack either.

 

[McBell]

This confuses me so I decided to ask. Does the fact that someone I totally disagree with on many subjects mean they can't ask a legitimate question that needs a serious answer? I dislike BO as prez as much as anyone could for so many reasons (not race). Does that mean, despite all that, he can't ask a good legitimate question that doesn't deserve an answer or reply?

Why I ask is this. It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself. Thus they will totally disregard the question as if it can't be legitimate due to who ask it. I don't get this.

Why do both creationist and evolutionist act so often as if the other side can't ask a legitimate question so it is ignored or made fun of just because they are not on the same side as the one replying. Doesn't it need a serious answer and response too? Certainly not a personal attack either.

Seems to me that there are a lot of questions being asked that cannot be taken serious simply because they make no sense to someone who understands the mechanics of the subject being asked about.

How many times have you seen the question asked about dogs giving birth to cats or some other such nonsense?

 

[ttechsan]

Answer the question! You are a perfect example of what I am referring to. Does asking a legit question mean if you don't like or disagree it is a bad question and should be ignored. What mechanics are you talking about? Or is it your way of avoiding a question you can't answer. Cut down the person and not deal with question as you can't. I sure don't want you as my teacher. If as a teacher I don't make myself clear, I need to rephrase of redo my answer or question. If I know more than they do doesn't make it any less legit. Is that not the goal of education (except to know it alls like yourself huh)

What an egotist you are. You judge a question based on your ego and supposed knowledge! Even if a thought question does that make it less legit since you apparently can't be bothered by what you think you are superior too.

Thanks for being an example of what I was referring to! I don't like wasting my time with people like yourself that judge any question not up to your "standards in your own mind" beneath you!

If I ever take a class with you as prof I would drop class immediately since you are too superior in your own mind.

Most people are humble enough to realize the more they learn they more they don't know (which leads to further questions) and give honor and respect to others rights to ask. I realize you are the type that thinks the only mistake you made was when you thought you had made a mistake later to find out you hadn't made the mistake at all.

No one can learn from self appointed know it alls!

BTW I asked that question only once. But if there are transitional forms exactly where are they and which of those two came first and how did one become the other and with transitional forms.

Too me IMHO I can't for the life of me figure out how a single (simple if such a thing exists, which there isn't the more we know) cell become both plants and animals and on up the line from common ancestor.

Please I beg of you oh sainted one explain to my simple mind how and when dogs and cats evolved and in what order and where the transitions are. I mean I realize the mechanism is so simple surely you can lower yourself to address it?

 

[Quintessence]

Ttechsan, everybody is going to judge the merit of a question based on their knowledge and experiences. Our worldview inevitably shapes our perceptions and at times that means you can see no validity in certain types of questions or perspectives. Mestemia does it, I do it, and you've done it too in this very thread. Sometimes we can learn to take off our glasses and try on another pair, but there are limits to our ability to do this.

 

[Skwim]

Answer the question! You are a perfect example of what I am referring to. Does asking a legit question mean if you don't like or disagree it is a bad question and should be ignored. What mechanics are you talking about? Or is it your way of avoiding a question you can't answer. Cut down the person and not deal with question as you can't. I sure don't want you as my teacher. If as a teacher I don't make myself clear, I need to rephrase of redo my answer or question. If I know more than they do doesn't make it any less legit. Is that not the goal of education (except to know it alls like yourself huh)

What an egotist you are. You judge a question based on your ego and supposed knowledge! Even if a thought question does that make it less legit since you apparently can't be bothered by what you think you are superior too.

Thanks for being an example of what I was referring to! I don't like wasting my time with people like yourself that judge any question not up to your "standards in your own mind" beneath you!

If I ever take a class with you as prof I would drop class immediately since you are too superior in your own mind.

Most people are humble enough to realize the more they learn they more they don't know (which leads to further questions) and give honor and respect to others rights to ask. I realize you are the type that thinks the only mistake you made was when you thought you had made a mistake later to find out you hadn't made the mistake at all.

No one can learn from self appointed know it alls!

BTW I asked that question only once. But if there are transitional forms exactly where are they and which of those two came first and how did one become the other and with transitional forms.

Too me IMHO I can't for the life of me figure out how a single (simple if such a thing exists, which there isn't the more we know) cell become both plants and animals and on up the line from common ancestor.

Please I beg of you oh sainted one explain to my simple mind how and when dogs and cats evolved and in what order and where the transitions are. I mean I realize the mechanism is so simple surely you can lower yourself to address it?

Because evolutionists are so tired of question based on misunderstandings and even outright lies, they often give short shrift to them. An honest question is not necessarily a legitimate one, particularly when it contains an erroneous presumption or is outright fallacious. And sometimes the answer to a question will entail more explanation than anyone cares to take time for. A good example of this is the one you imply here.

"I can't for the life of me figure out how a single (simple if such a thing exists, which there isn't the more we know) cell become both plants and animals and on up the line from common ancestor."
​

To give you a satisfactory answer would essentially take an entire class or more in biology, something no one here is about to do.

If you're really interested in the subject I suggest you read up on it and then come back with any question on specifics you may have. People here are quite willing to help others understand stuff, but within limits.

 

[ttechsan]

Again the answers I get as usual are circular thinking. They are not an answer. If the answers you get are ok with you then so be it but I personally prefer more definitive answers. I will quote from a text book.

The sun and planets probably formed from aggregates of dust particles and debris about 4.6 billion yrs ago. Intense heat produced by gravitational energy and radioactivity of some atoms caused the earth to become stratified into a core, a mantle and a crust. Heavier atoms of iron and nickel became the molten liquid core, and dense silicate minerals became the semiliquid mantle. The lighter molecules of silico, aluminum, and iron formed the crust.

Probably is not a science answer, it is a guess. The rest of it is making an assumption of prior existence without explaining how it originally came to be. Where did the original energy come from and how. Look up how energy is made.

Rest of paragraph says this, The temperature was so hot that atoms could not permanently bind; whenever bonds formed, they were quickly broken. Cooling had to occur before an atmosphere could develop.

Again exactly where is the explanation as to how this occurred and notice it also said cooling had to occur before the atmosphere could develop. I want more info than that. That paragraph explains NOTHING to me.

What caused cooling and where did all original stuff come from and can this be reproduced in a lab to prove the statements.

 

[McBell]

Answer the question! You are a perfect example of what I am referring to. Does asking a legit question mean if you don't like or disagree it is a bad question and should be ignored. What mechanics are you talking about? Or is it your way of avoiding a question you can't answer. Cut down the person and not deal with question as you can't. I sure don't want you as my teacher. If as a teacher I don't make myself clear, I need to rephrase of redo my answer or question. If I know more than they do doesn't make it any less legit. Is that not the goal of education (except to know it alls like yourself huh)

And this is a prime example of another problem with some people.
They are not the least bit interested in the truth or facts.
They merely want explained qhat cannot be explained due to a misunderstanding AND you do not want to be told why it cannot be explained.

Instead you jumped on your high horse and started ranting.
And you call me an egotist?

What an egotist you are. You judge a question based on your ego and supposed knowledge! Even if a thought question does that make it less legit since you apparently can't be bothered by what you think you are superior too.

I understand that you are not interested in anything but name calling and chest beating.

problem is, I am not the least bit impressed.

So much for wanting an honest answer to your question....

Thanks for being an example of what I was referring to! I don't like wasting my time with people like yourself that judge any question not up to your "standards in your own mind" beneath you!

What are you ranting on about now?

Seems you are so busy ranting that you have completely lost track of what I actually did say.

Which is yet another problem with answering questions that do not have an answer that will be accepted.

If I ever take a class with you as prof I would drop class immediately since you are too superior in your own mind.

Ah, more of your rant.
Interesting how you have just shown yourself to be one of the very people you whine and complain about in this thread..

Most people are humble enough to realize the more they learn they more they don't know (which leads to further questions) and give honor and respect to others rights to ask. I realize you are the type that thinks the only mistake you made was when you thought you had made a mistake later to find out you hadn't made the mistake at all.

Further demonstrating the very thing you whine about in your OP.

No one can learn from self appointed know it alls!

Yet here you are....

Too me IMHO I can't for the life of me figure out how a single (simple if such a thing exists, which there isn't the more we know) cell become both plants and animals and on up the line from common ancestor.

Yes, because everyone knows that if YOU cannot figure it out, it just cannot be done...

Please I beg of you oh sainted one explain to my simple mind how and when dogs and cats evolved and in what order and where the transitions are. I mean I realize the mechanism is so simple surely you can lower yourself to address it?

Nope.
I am not the least bit interested in taking the time to go all the back to first grade biology in order to get you up to speed enough for you to maybe understand.

And that is if I even thought you were the least bit interested in honestly learning anything about it.

 

[ttechsan]

Again, the mechanism it not explained. BTW that is High School Text. Your answers are same as I always get, non answers. Tell me the When, How, What, Where etc.

I guess I am not as trusting as you when I don't take non answers as answers from you or anyone. I want more depth, esp from science when taught as fact. IF fact then you should be able to explain the "mechanism" and all about it but alas as usual it doesn't happen. Thanks for playing but come back when you can actually give a science answer instead of telling me going back to early biology etc. IN debate that is avoidance and trying to divert from original so won't have to deal with original. I am not buying what you are selling.

Again, IMHO if someone will take those kinds of things as answers then I have some beach front property near the mountain range in the Sahara I would love to interest you in.

 

[ttechsan]

Late in text it says, The gases of the Primitive atmosphere were not the same as those of today's atmosphere. Originally, it was proposed that the earliest atmosphere contained a lot of hydrogen because it is the most abundant element in our solar system. Later, it was suggested that lightweight atoms, including hydrogen would have been lost as the earth formed because the earth's gravitational field was not strong enough to hold them. Now it is thought.....


Proposed, suggested, now it is thought..... Really those are answers by science as fact. Again I have property since you won't question any better than you apparently do.

 

[fantome profane]

Probably is not a science answer, it is a guess.

I think your problem is that you don't really understand what science is. Science does not give absolute answers, only probable ones. But that doesn't mean it is a guess. A scientific answer is the one that best fits the evidence and explains observations.

"Probably" is a scientific answer. If you don't like the answer that book gave you, do you have a better one? Do you have an answer that better fits the evidence and provides a more complete explanation? That is how science works.

 

[Skwim]

Again, the mechanism it not explained. BTW that is High School Text. Your answers are same as I always get, non answers. Tell me the When, How, What, Where etc.

I guess I am not as trusting as you when I don't take non answers as answers from you or anyone. I want more depth, esp from science when taught as fact. IF fact then you should be able to explain the "mechanism" and all about it but alas as usual it doesn't happen. Thanks for playing but come back when you can actually give a science answer instead of telling me going back to early biology etc. IN debate that is avoidance and trying to divert from original so won't have to deal with original. I am not buying what you are selling.

Again, IMHO if someone will take those kinds of things as answers then I have some beach front property near the mountain range in the Sahara I would love to interest you in.

You poor child. You don't get the answers you expect so you throw a snit.

Takes me back to my grade school years.

 

[McBell]

You poor child. You don't get the answers you expect so you throw a snit.

Takes me back to my grade school years.

Yet another problem.
When they do not get the answer they want.....

 

[jarofthoughts]

This confuses me so I decided to ask. Does the fact that someone I totally disagree with on many subjects mean they can't ask a legitimate question that needs a serious answer? I dislike BO as prez as much as anyone could for so many reasons (not race). Does that mean, despite all that, he can't ask a good legitimate question that doesn't deserve an answer or reply?

Why I ask is this. It seems so often on boards and discussions that people are attacked personally and totally ignored just because they come from a different side, idealism than oneself. Thus they will totally disregard the question as if it can't be legitimate due to who ask it. I don't get this.

Why do both creationist and evolutionist act so often as if the other side can't ask a legitimate question so it is ignored or made fun of just because they are not on the same side as the one replying. Doesn't it need a serious answer and response too? Certainly not a personal attack either.

Think of it like this:
I teach fifth grade and I have very inquisitive pupils, which is a good thing.
They ask me many questions, especially during science class, and from time to time I make sure we spend a lecture here and there on things they wonder about that isn't covered in the curriculum.
So you might say I go out of my way to answer honest questions.

But sometimes they ask questions for which the answers would be much to complicated or require a lot more knowledge than they currently possess, in which case I tell them so. These questions could be pertaining to Quantum Theory, the Theory of Relativity or complex biology or any other subject they would need years of study to understand. But they are honest questions, and if I think that there is any chance they will understand, I do my very best to explain the answers to them.

In some, unfortunately way too few, cases we get Creationists asking such questions, and in those instances I also do my best to explain the answers to them, although as has been pointed out by others, it might be best to refer them to useful textbooks or recommend that they take a class in biology.
Not because I am being snide or dismissive, but because even the most basic course I teach on biology, the one intended for fifth grade, takes up at least four one hour classes, not including time for related questions and assignments.

But sadly, in most cases, we get Creationists asking questions hoping to score a point, to try to stump someone, or to preach their flawed view of reality.
And in those cases, I, for one, have little time for them, and the tone is quite different. Those are not honest questions. They are not here to learn.

Someone who claims that Evolution is a random process, that the Earth is 6-12.000 years old, or that Noah's Ark was real is either lying or is woefully ignorant of even grade school science. Which means that, depending on their tone of questioning, they either deserve a snide remark as an answer, or that they should really hit the books.

 

[ttechsan]

So asking for real answers is not acceptable and that means one throws a snit. Interesting bc when I was asked questions if I answered the ways these are I know I didn't answer the question.

Into the the chapter on the origin of life begins this way.

Chapter 1 concept: The first cell or cells most likely arose by a slow process of chemical evolution ( most likely--again I don't like those words if someone is telling me it is proven!!!) Math doesn't work that way.

Chapter 2 concept: It is generally accepted that the first cell was an anaerobic heterotroph. ( generally accepted--really, Wasn't at one time it generally accepted that the world was flat and it was heresy and cost your life to go against the generally accepted school of thought. Not a great history IMHO) I thought fact was provable and not guess or Faith in a theory or isn't it only a theory?

Chapter 3 concept: Autotrophic nutrition made life on land possible by releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. So if it couldn't do that life not possible correct, apparently. (How is that known and proven and again explain the original existence of something from nothing - against First law of thermodynamics) When exactly has the science law and how was it changed to where life can come from non life, even originally. How did that change and why and what was the mechanism? Fact or faith?

Chapter 4 concept: Although life may have originated by chemical evolution, this process does not occur today. Today, life comes only from life. (Again--may have?) show me the chemical evolution chart and proof. Not possible now but we think it may have (or basically had to) do what isn't possible today. I thought evolution was still ongoing. Why and when and what made the science law change?

Again if you can handle those explanations as fact and feel comfortable with it so be it but not me. I want and need more if I am to put faith in it.

Reminds me of story of man that is taking a wheel barrow across Niagara Falls with 200 lbs in it. Everyone is amazed. He asks a man weighing around 200 if he believes that he could take him across in the wheel barrow. The man says, Certainly. The other man replies, Get in. The next reply is, NO WAY". I can't get in the evolution wheel barrow either as too me I need more but you guys go ahead and put your "FAITH" which is what it is in evolution as truth the way it is taught. I can't buy it and esp the way it is sold.:no:

Ironically you prove my original premise. You won't accept legit questions as if only evolutionist can ask them. But ironically there are many ex evolutionist that as they learn more about the complexity the more they realize that the theory of evolution just can't explain it sufficiently scientifically or mathematically.

Enjoy being that gullible but it is not for me!

 

[shawn001]

Again the answers I get as usual are circular thinking. They are not an answer. If the answers you get are ok with you then so be it but I personally prefer more definitive answers. I will quote from a text book.

The sun and planets probably formed from aggregates of dust particles and debris about 4.6 billion yrs ago. Intense heat produced by gravitational energy and radioactivity of some atoms caused the earth to become stratified into a core, a mantle and a crust. Heavier atoms of iron and nickel became the molten liquid core, and dense silicate minerals became the semiliquid mantle. The lighter molecules of silico, aluminum, and iron formed the crust.

Probably is not a science answer, it is a guess. The rest of it is making an assumption of prior existence without explaining how it originally came to be. Where did the original energy come from and how. Look up how energy is made.

Rest of paragraph says this, The temperature was so hot that atoms could not permanently bind; whenever bonds formed, they were quickly broken. Cooling had to occur before an atmosphere could develop.

Again exactly where is the explanation as to how this occurred and notice it also said cooling had to occur before the atmosphere could develop. I want more info than that. That paragraph explains NOTHING to me.

What caused cooling and where did all original stuff come from and can this be reproduced in a lab to prove the statements.

Your book is a little dated.

The sun is around 5 billion years old and the earth 4.57 billion.

The planets formed from material left over from the formation of the sun. The processes is called stellar and planetay accretion. We see stars like the sun born everyday, even new solar systems. Even the material that crated our sun and planets is material left over from earlier super nova star explosions, which is where the heavy elements are formed. So our sun and planets are recycled material.

The core of the earth is still cooling. But back then it had to cool to form the van allen belts that protect the earth from super high radation from the sun. Basically the earth is like a magnet. Also a planet the size of Mars hit the early earth and formed our moon. This was a massive impact. No life would have survived the early earth enviroment or the impact.


How the earth formed

[youtube]e1-F4lxJPo0[/youtube]
Earth: Making of a Planet - National Geographic Channel - YouTube

The atmophere we have today is not the atmophere we had 4.57 billion years ago.

In fact biological evolution gave us the oxygen atmophere we have today.

Scientific American
The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere

The breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms, although the details remain lost in geologic time.

"So how did Earth end up with an atmosphere made up of roughly 21 percent of the stuff?

The answer is tiny organisms known as cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day.

For some untold eons prior to the evolution of these cyanobacteria, during the Archean eon, more primitive microbes lived the real old-fashioned way: anaerobically. These ancient organisms—and their "extremophile" descendants today—thrived in the absence of oxygen, relying on sulfate for their energy needs.
The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American
Introduction to the Cyanobacteria

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American

Architects of earth's atmosphere
Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.
Introduction to the Cyanobacteria

Introduction to the Cyanobacteria

Early 'see-sawing' Earth experienced hazy shades of life
" Earth's early atmosphere fluctuated between 'organic haze' and a 'haze-free' environment similar to that of Saturn's moon, Titan, a new study has revealed.
And this switch over 2.5 billion years ago was the result of intense microbial activity and would have had a profound effect on the climate of the Earth system.
Research, led by experts at Newcastle University, UK, revealed that the Earth's early atmosphere periodically flipped from a hydrocarbon-free state into a hydrocarbon-rich state."

Hazy shades of life on early Earth

Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere
Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere › News in Science (ABC Science)
Can you breath Methane, or primarily natural gas?

Fossil raindrops reveal early atmosphere › News in Science (ABC Science)

Your breathing Oxygen right now because the bacteria called cynobacteria evolved photosynthesis and changed the earth atmophere. Our atmophere today is a direct result of evolution. Look it up.

 

[McBell]

Ironically you prove my original premise. You won't accept legit questions as if only evolutionist can ask them. But ironically there are many ex evolutionist that as they learn more about the complexity the more they realize that the theory of evolution just can't explain it sufficiently scientifically or mathematically.

Enjoy being that gullible but it is not for me!

even more interesting is how you have gone to such great lengths to fully demonstrate what I was talking about.

And you even go so far as to claim we are the gullible ones....

Your skills in transference are most remarkable.
Most remarkable indeed.

 

[Skwim]

So asking for real answers is not acceptable and that means one throws a snit.

You also throw a snit over this too?!? Good grief boy, get a grip on yourself or you'll self-explode before graduation day rolls around.

 

[darkendless]

Love people who slam science for not being absolute. It demonstrates a horiffic hole in understanding of how science actually works.

 

[ttechsan]

This is why it matters. I personally get tired of the way our questions are answered with none answers.


Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

 

[darkendless]

This is why it matters. I personally get tired of the way our questions are answered with none answers.


Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

What utter rubbish. Creation is an idea with absolutely zero grounding. These scientists have no soul and a frankly better off if they can't handle the heat of working in an expanding field and must resort to baseless concepts.