Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Dragon]

I have not been discussing God, nor doctrines, or any form of dogma.

I'm sorry, but that's disingenuous. If you have not been discussing these things OPENLY, nevertheless they are obviously behind any motivation to discredit evolution. Please don't lie. I have no respect for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not been discussing God, nor doctrines, or any form of dogma.

I'm sorry, but that's disingenuous. If you have not been discussing these things OPENLY, nevertheless they are obviously behind any motivation to discredit evolution. Please don't lie. I have no respect for it.

Sorry, but I have been debating Spinoza's god which is very different from "God". And you are being entirely disingenuous if you suggest that I have attempted to discredit evolution in any way. I will challenge you to provide any post on this or any thread that I have EVER made that even questions, much less challenges evolution.

 

[Dragon]

I have not been discussing God, nor doctrines, or any form of dogma.

I'm sorry, but that's disingenuous. If you have not been discussing these things OPENLY, nevertheless they are obviously behind any motivation to discredit evolution. Please don't lie. I have no respect for it.

Sorry, but I have been debating Spinoza's god which is very different from "God".

That is one of the most twisted sentences I've ever seen. "God" is an all-encompassing, broad concept; it is not limited to the god of any particular religion, let alone any particular slice of a religion. "God" refers to any universal deity, cosmic intelligence, or animating first principle, including Spinoza's God.

And you are being entirely disingenuous if you suggest that I have attempted to discredit evolution in any way. I will challenge you to provide any post on this or any thread that I have EVER made that even questions, much less challenges evolution.

Your last one. In fact, you are using one of the classic creationist arguments: to confuse evolution with ideas either about the origin of life or about the origin of the universe; also, setting evolution aside for the moment and dealing with the latter, the things you have said about what went before the big bang and must/could have caused it, are a classic argument for God's existence, the first origins or prime mover argument.

Granted that your theological concepts are not those of traditional Christianity, nevertheless to claim that you are not arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective is an untruth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. We've created evolution in the Petrie dish.

Evolution explained as the origins of life is a theory, however.

The only evolution proven and there is no doubt that it happens is micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations,that is a very long jump to go from that to macro-evolution.

Sorry that many of you have been poorly educated as to not knowing the difference between the two.

No, there's no proof that's evolution either. You're making the mistake of passing off mutation as evolution.

That is why I prefer the term adaptation. Beneficial mutations are very rare, to rare to cause macro-evolution.

I believe the diversity we see in all groups is nothing more then the product of inter breeding not mutations so I am with you on this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me ask you a very simple question on logic.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or that non-living matter creates life ?

Neither of those is more "logical" than the other.

What fits the observed reality, which is the better question, is that both are true.

Wrong, not when you consider the evidence sorry.

 

[Flopper]

What incredible faith it must take to believe that 'nothing existed before the big bang' but it just somehow miraculously happened out of nothing and all that we can see and observe and know is the result?

To believe that something comes from nothing created by nothing requires an awful lot of faith in something.

 

[Dragon]

Wrong, not when you consider the evidence sorry.

It's when you consider the evidence -- and do so HONESTLY, something you have yet to accomplish -- that what I said becomes the most logical position.

Life comes from life because we see that happening.

Life also comes from non-life because we know there was a time when it must have.

In fact, you believe this yourself; you merely posit a divine agency as part of the process.

Beneficial mutations are very rare, to rare to cause macro-evolution.

It's this sort of off-the-cuff statement that shows me you are not considering the evidence honestly. Beneficial mutations ARE very rare, but to say they are "too rare to cause evolution" is non-thinking garbage. It's a feeling statement more than a thinking one. It could not be more obvious that you have a conclusion you WANT to reach -- divine creation of man -- and are working backward from that conclusion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry, but that's disingenuous. If you have not been discussing these things OPENLY, nevertheless they are obviously behind any motivation to discredit evolution. Please don't lie. I have no respect for it.

Sorry, but I have been debating Spinoza's god which is very different from "God".

That is one of the most twisted sentences I've ever seen. "God" is an all-encompassing, broad concept; it is not limited to the god of any particular religion, let alone any particular slice of a religion. "God" refers to any universal deity, cosmic intelligence, or animating first principle, including Spinoza's God.

And you are being entirely disingenuous if you suggest that I have attempted to discredit evolution in any way. I will challenge you to provide any post on this or any thread that I have EVER made that even questions, much less challenges evolution.

Your last one. In fact, you are using one of the classic creationist arguments: to confuse evolution with ideas either about the origin of life or about the origin of the universe; also, setting evolution aside for the moment and dealing with the latter, the things you have said about what went before the big bang and must/could have caused it, are a classic argument for God's existence, the first origins or prime mover argument.

Granted that your theological concepts are not those of traditional Christianity, nevertheless to claim that you are not arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective is an untruth.

Well your opinion that nothing existed before the big bang - OR - everything in the universe just suddenly miraculously spontaneously appeared out of nothing requires a far bigger religious leap of faith than anything I've said. Or that the stuff of the universe just is and has always been and somehow automatically organized itself into the diverse, incredibly intricate, but orderly process that we can observe also requires a far bigger leap of faith than anything I've said.

However, I have not been arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective any more than Spinoza or Einstein were arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective. To completely blow off those great scientific minds and declare them or their theories irrelevent to the discussion seems a bit arroagant to me.

 

[editec]

Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

FYI, Gravity is a THEORY, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

FYI, Gravity is a THEORY, too.

That's the thing. We know gravity is consistent and ALWAYS works on Planet Earth and the moon and can reasonably conclude it will exist on Mars, Venus, etc.

But is gravity universal? Most scientists believe it is plausible that it would exist or work the same everywhere in the universe, but we don't know that for sure do we. There is no way to test or falsify that theory. How amazing and exciting will it be when we ARE able to test or falsify that theory and find the theory to not hold up?

Sometimes I think that is the worst fear of the scientific religionists. If they allow themselves to think to much about possibilities outside the conventional wisdom, they might find out what they have always believed is flawed and they don't want to have to consider that possibility.

I think true scientists aren't tied to any theory but always keep an open mind about all the wonderful stuff we all still have to learn.

 

[Flopper]

Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

FYI, Gravity is a THEORY, too.

Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a general physical law derived from empirical observations. I would not call it a theory.

 

[Dragon]

Well your opinion that nothing existed before the big bang - OR - everything in the universe just suddenly miraculously spontaneously appeared out of nothing requires a far bigger religious leap of faith than anything I've said.

It doesn't actually; but here, with this "pot-kettle-black" argument, you are reinforcing what I said: that your position is religiously derived, and that you ARE talking about God. That's all right; I don't mind talking about God in a religious forum. I just mind that you pretend you're not doing so.

The reason it doesn't require more "faith" is that I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying "everything in the universe just appeared out of nothing." There was no nothing. There was no "was." Time has a boundary. There is no before the big bang, because "before" implies time stretching back further than that boundary. This isn't "faith," it's an ability to stretch the mind to encompass the totally unfamiliar and non-intuitive. That time has a boundary (two boundaries maybe) is not the way we experience time on an everyday basis, so it's HARD to think of it that way, but it doesn't require "faith." It just requires extreme flexibility of the imagination.

However, I have not been arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective any more than Spinoza or Einstein were arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective. To completely blow off those great scientific minds and declare them or their theories irrelevent to the discussion seems a bit arroagant to me.

Oh, I'm certainly not lacking in arrogance, but I'm not saying that they are irrelevant to the discussion. I AM saying, though, that the things you are quoting them as having said DO come from a religious or spiritual perspective. Einstein was an atheist and was hardly religious in any conventional sense, but he was deeply spiritual.

The thing is, he did not allow his spirituality to intrude into his science, anymore than he allowed his left-wing politics to do so. All of his scientific papers followed the rules exactly. The quotes you have presented by him do not come from any scientific papers. They represent Einstein as a person, but not Einstein as a scientist.

 

[Dragon]

Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

FYI, Gravity is a THEORY, too.

Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a general physical law derived from empirical observations. I would not call it a theory.

You are mistaken. A theory is what it is. A disproven one at this point.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong, not when you consider the evidence sorry.

It's when you consider the evidence -- and do so HONESTLY, something you have yet to accomplish -- that what I said becomes the most logical position.

Life comes from life because we see that happening.

Life also comes from non-life because we know there was a time when it must have.

In fact, you believe this yourself; you merely posit a divine agency as part of the process.

Beneficial mutations are very rare, to rare to cause macro-evolution.

It's this sort of off-the-cuff statement that shows me you are not considering the evidence honestly. Beneficial mutations ARE very rare, but to say they are "too rare to cause evolution" is non-thinking garbage. It's a feeling statement more than a thinking one. It could not be more obvious that you have a conclusion you WANT to reach -- divine creation of man -- and are working backward from that conclusion.

So give us evidence of a beneficial mutation.

 

[konradv]

Wrong, not when you consider the evidence sorry.

It's when you consider the evidence -- and do so HONESTLY, something you have yet to accomplish -- that what I said becomes the most logical position.

Life comes from life because we see that happening.

Life also comes from non-life because we know there was a time when it must have.

In fact, you believe this yourself; you merely posit a divine agency as part of the process.

Beneficial mutations are very rare, to rare to cause macro-evolution.

It's this sort of off-the-cuff statement that shows me you are not considering the evidence honestly. Beneficial mutations ARE very rare, but to say they are "too rare to cause evolution" is non-thinking garbage. It's a feeling statement more than a thinking one. It could not be more obvious that you have a conclusion you WANT to reach -- divine creation of man -- and are working backward from that conclusion.

So give us evidence of a beneficial mutation.

The ones that we presently have, but weren't around during the early days of earth, like the ability to generate ones own heat, as opposed to being cold-blooded.

 

[Flopper]

FYI, Gravity is a THEORY, too.

Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a general physical law derived from empirical observations. I would not call it a theory.

You are mistaken. A theory is what it is. A disproven one at this point.

So, Fg is no longer equal to G*(m1*m2/r squared)? Guess my physics book is wrong.

 

[Dragon]

So, Fg is no longer equal to G*(m1*m2/r squared)? Guess my physics book is wrong.

If it presents Newton's theory of gravity as current, yes, it is. I don't know the mathematical expression of it, not being a physicist myself, but Einstein's theory of gravity has replaced Newton's.

Newton's math can still be used as a rule of thumb for most normal engineering purposes, though.

 

[Dragon]

So give us evidence of a beneficial mutation.

Here are quite a few examples.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

 

[Foxfyre]

Well your opinion that nothing existed before the big bang - OR - everything in the universe just suddenly miraculously spontaneously appeared out of nothing requires a far bigger religious leap of faith than anything I've said.

It doesn't actually; but here, with this "pot-kettle-black" argument, you are reinforcing what I said: that your position is religiously derived, and that you ARE talking about God. That's all right; I don't mind talking about God in a religious forum. I just mind that you pretend you're not doing so.

The reason it doesn't require more "faith" is that I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying "everything in the universe just appeared out of nothing." There was no nothing. There was no "was." Time has a boundary. There is no before the big bang, because "before" implies time stretching back further than that boundary. This isn't "faith," it's an ability to stretch the mind to encompass the totally unfamiliar and non-intuitive. That time has a boundary (two boundaries maybe) is not the way we experience time on an everyday basis, so it's HARD to think of it that way, but it doesn't require "faith." It just requires extreme flexibility of the imagination.

However, I have not been arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective any more than Spinoza or Einstein were arguing from a religious or spiritual perspective. To completely blow off those great scientific minds and declare them or their theories irrelevent to the discussion seems a bit arroagant to me.

Oh, I'm certainly not lacking in arrogance, but I'm not saying that they are irrelevant to the discussion. I AM saying, though, that the things you are quoting them as having said DO come from a religious or spiritual perspective. Einstein was an atheist and was hardly religious in any conventional sense, but he was deeply spiritual.

The thing is, he did not allow his spirituality to intrude into his science, anymore than he allowed his left-wing politics to do so. All of his scientific papers followed the rules exactly. The quotes you have presented by him do not come from any scientific papers. They represent Einstein as a person, but not Einstein as a scientist.

Each to their own perspective I guess. You confine science to a much more narrow perspective/box than I do and than I believe Einstein did. And you dismiss anything felt 'spiritually' as impossible to also be science. I don't.

The theory of relativity was just a notion in his head--an opinion--too until he was able to justify it mathematically. By your definition it wasn't science at all until there was a mathematical equation to support it. He didn't just intuit and write down the math and then figure out what it meant.

I don't look at science as only that which has already been 'proved' but rather choose to look at it as also as that which is yet to be discovered.

I prefer my way.

 

[Dragon]

Each to their own perspective I guess. You confine science to a much more narrow perspective/box than I do and than I believe Einstein did. And you dismiss anything felt 'spiritually' as impossible to also be science. I don't.

Hmm. Not quite. See my answer to your second paragraph below. As for the "narrow" definition of science that I'm using, I'm just defining science according to its purpose (the discovery and modeling of natural processes) and its method, the scientific method. That's all.

The theory of relativity was just a notion in his head--an opinion--too until he was able to justify it mathematically. By your definition it wasn't science at all until there was a mathematical equation to support it.

Have you read Einstein's papers on those subjects? They do contain some math, but the math isn't very hard. Mostly it involves thought experiments and such. Quite well written and worth reading, in fact.

Had relativity remained "just a notion" in Einstein's head, without mapping out the conceptual and mathematical details that turned it into a proper theory, that would not have been science. His turning of that "notion" into a theory that could explain many phenomena in nature, and be used to make predictions allowing for experimental verification, is what turned it into science. A mere "notion" is not science, but can be used as a starting point to build science. It's not where the idea comes from, but what one does with it.

Similarly, it's not whether something is "felt spiritually," but rather what one does (or can do) with it. I know what type of experience leads to concepts of God; I've been there. So I don't dismiss those concepts out of hand, as some do; nevertheless, they cannot be used to make predictions allowing for experimental verification, and therefore they are not scientific theories. But that's not due to their origins, it's due to what is or isn't, or can or can't be, done with them.

I don't look at science as only that which has already been 'proved' but rather choose to look at it as also as that which is yet to be discovered.

That is most certainly NOT the difference between your view of science and mine, and the fact that you think it is, is proof positive you don't understand where I'm coming from.