Many atheists I have encountered shrug off religion as being illogical. As if God must have come from somewhere. He cannot just be there.
What befuddles me about that, is the idea of existence. I am not well versed in the big bang theory. But as far as my understanding goes a condensed particle exploded or something along those lines?
Where did that particle come from?
Atheists use 'Logic' to defute religion. But the entire prospect of existence is illogical. For it can have no logical beginning.
Your thoughts?
To me, nobody can explain where everything came from to a degree that satisfies me. To religion, this is all part of the mystery of God and faith.To science, this is because we don't know yet. Personally, I prefer lack of knowledge to be viewed as temporary and caused by our lack of knowledge of the world around us rather than a permanent state that we should accept never understanding.
Throughout history man has made countless efforts to give explanation to their being.
Atheists do so by using logic. Claiming that the existence of a higher being is illogical.
Theists do so by using an illogical explanation. Stating that 'logic' is a creation of man. And existence is beyond our understanding.
Existence has no logical explanation. The beginning, and the end of existence are illogical. It simply IS.
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on June 17, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
Throughout history man has made countless efforts to give explanation to their being.
Atheists do so by using logic. Claiming that the existence of a higher being is illogical.
Theists do so by using an illogical explanation. Stating that 'logic' is a creation of man. And existence is beyond our understanding.
Existence has no logical explanation. The beginning, and the end of existence are illogical. It simply IS.
In my honest opinion, the Big Bang theory is something that may be proven, no matter how many countless years in the future, while the existence of God is something that you'd have to bring someone back from the dead to prove... but then that would disprove God at the same time, as you cannot bring a soul back from Heaven or Hell by any practical means, I believe (Correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, GCK, I respect your religion, and I have no problem with you being a theist, and, from the looks of it, you are starting to tolerate the atheists around here (As in accepting our place here), and you're right, existence is something that cannot be explained, at least, not by science at the moment, but cannot be proven by science nor theism of any sort, as you would have to have contact with God or Allah or whoever else is your god, and I don't think there is anyone out there, probably the closest thing to it being the Pope, and I think that, according to Catholicism, God speaks through his actions, not through him directly.
Maybe the world we see isn't the real world. Maybe the reality that human's perceive is actually a simulated reality created by sentient machines to pacify and subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source.
You guys talk more about (in my opinion) trivial religious differences, then actual, important world and political issues. In the Arab world, there are democracies being born and wars being fought, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Greece's debt problem could bring down the collect economy of the EU, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". The Republican presidential candidates debate about how much influence the government should have in the economy and daily life, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". China is building up their military forces, while using hackers to espionage the west, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence".
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 17, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
Maybe the world we see isn't the real world. Maybe the reality that human's perceive is actually a simulated reality created by sentient machines to pacify and subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source.
I see what you did there.
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 17, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
You guys talk more about (in my opinion) trivial religious differences, then actual, important world and political issues. In the Arab world, there are democracies being born and wars being fought, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Greece's debt problem could bring down the collect economy of the EU, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". The Republican presidential candidates debate about how much influence the government should have in the economy and daily life, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". China is building up their military forces, while using hackers to espionage the west, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence".
And you care what we want to talk about because...? If you don't like what we discuss, don't participate in the discussion, and if you want us to talk about China or Iran, start a topic about that yourself.
Quote from: Duskling on June 17, 2011, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 17, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
Maybe the world we see isn't the real world. Maybe the reality that human's perceive is actually a simulated reality created by sentient machines to pacify and subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source.
I see what you did there.
Love it
Quote from: Duskling on June 17, 2011, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 17, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
You guys talk more about (in my opinion) trivial religious differences, then actual, important world and political issues. In the Arab world, there are democracies being born and wars being fought, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Greece's debt problem could bring down the collect economy of the EU, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". The Republican presidential candidates debate about how much influence the government should have in the economy and daily life, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". China is building up their military forces, while using hackers to espionage the west, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence".
And you care what we want to talk about because...? If you don't like what we discuss, don't participate in the discussion, and if you want us to talk about China or Iran, start a topic about that yourself.
I agree, talking about things like this shouldn't be looked down upon just because there are more corporeal problems about. Besides, its not like we're doing this instead of helping out with these issues, for most of us there is absolutely nothing short of a few donations that we can do
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 17, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
You guys talk more about (in my opinion) trivial religious differences, then actual, important world and political issues. In the Arab world, there are democracies being born and wars being fought, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Greece's debt problem could bring down the collect economy of the EU, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". The Republican presidential candidates debate about how much influence the government should have in the economy and daily life, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence". China is building up their military forces, while using hackers to espionage the west, but you guys want to talk about "The Idea of Existence".
"
He who asks a question may be a fool for five minutes. But he who never asks a question remains a fool forever."Tom J. Connelly
What is it exactly you intend to happen if we were to discuss real world events? There is literally nothing in my power that I can do to change such things. I think we can all agree that the Nuclear Weapons in Iran is a bad thing. Same with the hackers China is using to "espionage" the west.
Why would we talk about such things? Not only is it a pointless conversation that subdues no closure to one another. I simply don't care. It is beyond my reach to do literally ANYTHING about. So why talk about it?
I've never been one to mourn, mind you. When my grandmother passed away I did little of it. I did not cry at the funeral.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. Even less use trying to stop a falling glass of milk that is over 100 miles away.
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on June 20, 2011, 09:57:58 PM
I've never been one to mourn, mind you. When my grandmother passed away I did little of it. I did not cry at the funeral.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. Even less use trying to stop a falling glass of milk that is over 100 miles away.
I don't think you quite get the idea of that expression...
*Back on topic*
You should check out the "spirit science" serise on youtube. It's spiritual stuff, but portrayed logically and scientifically (mostly, a bit about crop circles in one of the later episodes sort of disappointed me.)
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on June 20, 2011, 09:57:58 PMI've never been one to mourn, mind you. When my grandmother passed away I did little of it. I did not cry at the funeral.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. Even less use trying to stop a falling glass of milk that is over 100 miles away.
Many of the issues in the world are caused by a lack of empathy such as yours.
Quote from: im2smart4u on June 22, 2011, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on June 20, 2011, 09:57:58 PMI've never been one to mourn, mind you. When my grandmother passed away I did little of it. I did not cry at the funeral.
There is no use crying over spilled milk. Even less use trying to stop a falling glass of milk that is over 100 miles away.
Many of the issues in the world are caused by a lack of empathy such as yours.
I agree here. I don't cry much, and think its best to be less emotional, but only to a degree. A loved one dying is worth a few tears.
Which is why I might or might not have to cry were a certain person named whoops! can't tell the cat to die.
Love interests aside, the spread of the universe as is evidenced by disproportionate amounts of subtle redshifting does indeed imply the reverse as one goes back in time; contraction of the universe, suggesting a single origin point. What went down there must have been some literally hot stuff, and I'm cool with God being involved before that point, but that fiery inferno must have obliterated Him unless he happens to be made of superstring material that does not interact with normal matter and particles of the Standard Theory... I digress. My point is but that God probably isn't around any more, or He only has observer status. He certainly isn't the one some Jewish heretics came up with when they split from the latke-making, krav-maga-fighting, hora-chair-riding mothership and made up Christianity, and He certainly didn't create me.
what if stargate is right?
Duckling, I think you just said the big bang killed god?
But, I have recieved very few replies that actually reply to me.
Im2smart4u responded by saying we should be discussing something more important.
Rained suggested a bad TV show is right, but thats besides the point.
Existence can have no agreeable beginning, or end. It simply doesn't make sense because the only way for existence to.. exist is for it to have always been there. Is that no less logical than the idea of a higher being?
Gəck: [T]he only way for existence to.. exist is for it to have always been there.
Duck: ... or for it to have started. The logical process involved, against the idea of creation of the world as we see it, goes as follows:
P1: All perception of light is subjective to the Doppler Effect.
C1: If and only if an emitter of light is moving in a direction opposite to its emission of light, the light will be percieved as redshifted.
C2: For any given viewing point, if emitted light is percieved as redshifted, the emitter is moving away from the viewing point.
C3: If and only if an emitter of light is moving in a direction aligned with its emission of light, the light will be percieved as blueshifted.
C4: For any given viewing point, if emitted light is percieved as blueshifted, the emitter is moving towards the viewing point.
C5: If and only if a viewer is in an expanding universe, most emitted light will be percieved as redshifted.
C6: If most emitted light is percieved as redshifted, the viewer is in an expanding universe.
C7: If and only if a viewer is in a contracting universe, most emitted light will be percieved as blueshifted.
P2: Near emitters of light can be used as references points for highly accurate estimation of average light wavelength from a given emitter.
P3: Such estimations have established that emitted light from far away is, on average, redshifted.
C8: We are in an expanding universe.
P4: If the universe is expanding as time goes forwards, it contracts as time goes backwards.
C9: As time goes backwards, the universe contracts.
P5: We are in an entropic universe.
P6: If entropy increases as time goes forwards, it decreases as time goes backwards.
C10: As time goes backwards, the entropy decreases.
C11: At the beginning of the universe, the universe existed as a single point.
The logical process explaining why science doesn't indulge your curiosities in the regard any further is as follows here:
P7: Any scientific theory that includes information that has not been established as factual cannot be plausible.
P8: We have little to no information established as factual pertaining to the beginning of the universe.
C12: Any scientific theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe includes little to no factual information.
C13: Any scientific theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe including more than little information cannot be plausible.
We simply don't have enough data. However, that doesn't mean science resorts to fantasy to fill in the blanks. When we've done that in the past, it's always turned out wrong.
And yes, I did say that if God was around before the Big Bang, He was most likely killed in the explosion and incinerated.
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on June 30, 2011, 05:55:29 AM
Rained suggested a bad TV show is right, but thats besides the point.
hey SG-1 is a very well written show. If you like sci-fi then you have to like SG-1
Nope. That's simply not true.
Alright Ducky. Just wondering. If God were outside of the singular point to instigate the Big Bang, how would he be destroyed?
SG-1 was fine. The 182343459734095 spinoffs I kept seeing all sucked.
But that is besides the point.
From all the knowledge gathered in the world. The big bang theory is no more plausible than the existence of a higher being.
False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that
theistic religion does not.
Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?
You didn't answer my question, Ducky.
Sorry -- I didn't see it.
The universe grew very quickly. It probably would have destroyed anything within 50 miles in mere nanoseconds; mostly, that was a joke. I don't actually think that it's likely that God caused the Big Bang.
Quote from: Duckling' on July 02, 2011, 12:30:11 AM
False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that
theistic religion does not.
Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?
Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly. I don't find your explanation logical at all, not to mention most of them break the law of conversation of matter.
"Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly."
That's absurd. Each individual theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe is either speculation, silly, or some of both; they do not range. Collectively, they range.
Granted; I didn't pose an explanation. I simply explained an existing theory that pertains to the beginning of the universe.
Next, I'd like to say that you really shouldn't use an object pronoun that doesn't refer to the last object used in a sentence. Finally, I'd like to add, speculatively, that perhaps the conservation of matter doesn't apply when universes begin. My point is that we know very little on the matter. What we do know, however, we can use as premises to form conclusions about the beginning. I'm not quite sure that you understand this, but when I refer to the Big Bang theory, I'm referring to its most basic form:
"At the beginning of the universe, all matter existed as a singularity, or a point mass. Then, the matter expanded in all directions, forming the galaxies and deep space astronomic formations we see today.
Quote from: Duckling' on July 02, 2011, 10:09:27 PM
"At the beginning of the universe, all matter existed as a singularity, or a point mass. Then, the matter expanded in all directions, forming the galaxies and deep space astronomic formations we see today.
Til that much can be proven, it is a contraceptive argument. Irrelevant to the larger scheme of things.
Look, if you're going to use the contraction "'til," just use the apostrophe that goes in front of it.
Can you prove that gravity is what is pulling us downwards? Or should we just assume that the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are pushing us down towards the Earth? Theories don't have to be proven for them to be extremely plausible theories, and they certainly don't have to be proven to be relevant. The Big Bang theory is very likely, judging from the data we have. But then again, you being one of those Christians that chooses to ignore empirical evidence and insist that evolution is "just a theory," you might just completely disregard all the evidence pointing to this conclusion as well.
Ducky, might I ask how the passing on of genes works? I know, but would you explain for me? Just the genes though. No need to break PG.
Yes, you might. Which part? Meiosis? And might I suggest that we bring a discussion of reproduction to a more appropriate topic, unless, of course, this directly pertains to the argument, be there, in fact, an argument.
Quote from: Duckling' on July 03, 2011, 12:15:24 AM
But then again, you being one of those Christians that chooses to ignore empirical evidence and insist that evolution is "just a theory,"
Ahh, so my religion defutes my points by themselves?
That sentence was not grammatically correct, and "defute" isn't a word. Try again.
In your second attempt at English, please consider not taking quotes out of context, expecially dependent clauses that merely state recieved information.
How about, instead of dwelling on my typos, you make valid points? I mean honestly if I had a dollar for every time you commented on a misspelling I could buy Apple.
They aren't typos, they're errors that make what you think you're saying into nonsense that is indecipherable. What if you choose to, instead of dwelling on my insistence for correctness, use valid sentences?
If I were to have a dollar for every time you've misplaced a comma in a way that screws up the meaning of the sentence it was in, I would have about $10.00.
defute-refute
It was a typo.
GCK: [Ah, so my religion refutes my points by itself?]
DUCK: No, but I simply had recieved, in past disagreements, the impression that you had the tendency to ignore certain undeniable pieces of evidence that clearly support the opposing case, which I (possibly mistakenly) attribute to your religious background, as these tend, especially in Christians, to result in strong conviction in the religion and associated dogma without factual or empirical evidence.
This later instills the tendency to ignore further knowledge or, if you will, evidence that supports an alternate viewpoint. This is evidenced in arguments between creationists and cdesign proponentsists* on one side, and with scientists of a relevant field who support the theory of evolution on the other. Throughout history, the Church has chosen to ignore clear evidence of viewpoints that challenge a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the cases of Gallileo and Copernicus, and the entire field of carbon dating.
I further insist that the Big Bang is, at the moment, unprovable, but highly likely; unfortunately, it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, and as a result, Christians will ignore data and collective knowledge established by the scientific method in order to preserve their anachronistic inferences gained from the "Good Book."
*It's an inside joke, not a typo.
I have noticed that once people make up their mind about something, they tend to hold on to that idea no matter what the evidence says. This applies to Christians, but I also think it applies to all other people. Christians will hold on to their beliefs because they are right in their own eyes. Evolution, as you should know, is far from a perfect theory with no flaws or loose ends in it, regardless of what people say. Therefore, since there are flaws or loose ends, Christians can exploit these flaws, and use them to disprove evolution in their own minds. Once people believe something fully in their mind, it becomes right. Any evidence to the contrary often gets ignored. This is a people thing, not necessarily a Christian thing. I doubt loose ends of evolution are highly discussed by scientists or in text books. Why should they be? To the scientist, evolution seems like the only rational explanation for our existence, and if there are any gaps or loose ends or flaws, they are probably based on a lack of human knowledge of the subject related to the gap or loose end or flaw. To a Christian, however, those flaws or loose ends or gaps are very important. Christians do not necessarily ignore clear evidence, they ignore evidence that to them is not clear. To a scientist who believes evolution and holds it as a truth, however, many things can be seen as proof for evolution. If you believe that the Big Bang is unprovable, why do you expect Christians to embrace it. At the very least, they hold their own faith to be unprovable, so why would you ask them to exchange their belief and values for something that is, at the most, no more provable.
I don't believe that all people hold dearly to ideas that have been evidenced to be untrue. I only wait for new evidence to be brought to light, or seek to bring it to light myself, and only then change my mind.
If you would care to highlight a few of the flaws in the theory of evolution, I would be much obliged.
I can also say that proponents of scientific theories do often discuss and argue over the implications and the details, along with major premises of the thinking behind them. Evolution has been throroughly debated and discussed, and was subjected to harsh review when first proposed. The flaws that there may be are not widely discoursed upon in textbooks for the reason that textbooks are to inform the reader of what is known, and not, for the most part, of what remains unknown.
Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.
I also would like to say the at the present time, the Big Bang cannot be proven, but that it is open to proof. The Christian mythology surrounding origin is not open to scientific proof or disproof, and thus is both unscientific and most likely only a story. I embrace what could be proven, and that for which there is quite a bit of evidence displaying.
Oh, and I don't expect Christians to give up their values; I don't even expect them to give up their interpretation of the Bible. I only wish they would the latter.
Quote from: Duckling' on July 06, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
I don't believe that all people hold dearly to ideas that have been evidenced to be untrue. I only wait for new evidence to be brought to light, or seek to bring it to light myself, and only then change my mind.
If you would care to highlight a few of the flaws in the theory of evolution, I would be much obliged.
I can also say that proponents of scientific theories do often discuss and argue over the implications and the details, along with major premises of the thinking behind them. Evolution has been throroughly debated and discussed, and was subjected to harsh review when first proposed. The flaws that there may be are not widely discoursed upon in textbooks for the reason that textbooks are to inform the reader of what is known, and not, for the most part, of what remains unknown.
Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.
I also would like to say the at the present time, the Big Bang cannot be proven, but that it is open to proof. The Christian mythology surrounding origin is not open to scientific proof or disproof, and thus is both unscientific and most likely only a story. I embrace what could be proven, and that for which there is quite a bit of evidence displaying.
Oh, and I don't expect Christians to give up their values; I don't even expect them to give up their interpretation of the Bible. I only wish they would the latter.
Well, riddle me this duck. What are the odds that so many species and organisms would evolve on such an advanced level? Even more so, what are the odds the food chain would go together so well? I find it entirely silly that you think all this happened by chance.
Why are we the only species that has a language? Or is intelligent enough to go farther than some of the most basic life processes?
The odds are astronomical. They're astronomically great.
The current theory on the origin of life is that it was preceded by self-replicating molecules. One definition of life is that it must be capable of reproduction, and these fitted that parameter. The first was RNA, which promptly created copies of itself all around the world, and occasionally the RNA surrounded itself with other molecules that protected it, and which could also replicate along with the RNA. These became proto-viri.
The viri further developed survival measures by random bonding and replication errors over hundreds of millions of years. That means sextillions of generations of proto-viri, all over the world, each of which might have had some minute error that might prove beneficial and cause it to reproduce more effectively than other proto-viri. These developed sturdier protein jackets, and even a metabolic system, which oxidized sugars, turning them into energy for use by the now proto-cell.
Energy for use opened up many possibilities, including flagella, propelling the proto-cells to new locations quickly, at several body-lengths per second. No longer did these basic almost-life forms have to rely on ocean currents for movement. Organelles, smaller at first, but then becoming larger in size through the generations through what was now mutation, served vital roles in these early cells. Plasmids detailing the genetic instructions for parts of the cells were exchanged, and new mutations were quickly spread throughout the population. I think a biology teacher told you the rest. And yes, the odds of, in warm, acidic water, full of organic molecules, ribonucleic acid forming is quite likely.
The food chain only occurred because predators reproduced and adapted in a way that they created new niches. Prey developed first, only checked by resources and disease, but then predators, small at first, evolved to hunt different sorts of prey; unlocking a new, bigger food source was a hugely beneficial trait that was quickly passed on. However, hunting the new prey might take the adapted strain of the existing predator elsewhere, and separate the groups. Such separation leads to species differenciation.
This, by the way, is a great opportunity to explain why monkeys don't spontaneously turn into people. Homonids filled a niche that required intellect and the ability to make tools, along with other tasks which need higher thinking. They filled this niche very well. If modern-day chimpanzees were to attempt to outcompete humans in our niche, they would have to spontaneously "turn into humans," something that is biologically impossible, or about as likely as Game Crazy Kid listening to reason, logic, and science.
The niche change was, instead, something gradual and over millions of years. We outcompete monkeys in our niche so hopelessly that they couldn't hope to adapt so as to barge in on what humans do so well. In was only evolutionarily recently (about 300 years or so) that conservational efforts were enacted so as to prevent humans from killing anything attempting to steal livestock or kill in the same area we attempted to. We shoot wolves, trap tigers, fight bears in gladiator arenas because we can, and subject any predator worth its salt to a hunt so fierce it has nearly wiped out a great number of the species.
Nothing can happen evolutionarily, on a large scale, within the time frame of 300 years. It would be like me asking you to put together as much of a puzzle that could be assembled correctly in 1000 different ways out of billions of possibilities as you could in five seconds. Five hours is different. Five years is different.
I might add, at this point, that I find it equally, if not more so, as ridiculous as you find my views that you believe, and hold dear the belief with all your little heart, that God slapped us all (us all being all life) down onto the face of a barren rock in six days, despite the fact that two of those days were measured against a rotation of a planet that didn't even exist yet.
We're the only species that's intelligent enough to hold a conversation (oh, and parrots), but other species have other methods of communication, such as clicks, screeches, thumps, and odors. These, given time, and given a lack of an omnipotent predator having gained control of the planet (that's us), might evolve into complete language.
Finally, I ask you this, in response to your last question:
Do you think purring, fighting, whining, building, climbing, digging, emitting a sound of greater than 200 decibels, running 75 miles per hour, coaxing termites out of a hole with a stick, and singing are nothing more than basic life processes? I certainly hope not.
Ducky, you claim that
Quote from: Duckling' on July 06, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.
But, have you even looked? Might I provide a magically magical magic link to a site that actually does present one of your allegedly non-existent alternative theories?
Simply click here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution) to see something that doesn't exist, as you say.
Quote from: Bugfartboy on July 07, 2011, 01:11:31 AM
Ducky, you claim that Quote from: Duckling' on July 06, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.
But, have you even looked? Might I provide a magically magical magic link to a site that actually does present one of your allegedly non-existent alternative theories?
Simply click here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution) to see something that doesn't exist, as you say.
Bug, you just won the game.
Quote from: SmartyPants on June 22, 2011, 04:17:04 PM
Many of the issues in the world are caused by a lack of empathy such as yours.
Empathy: The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
I understand the feelings of another. But why should I be grieving over something like, for example, China's earthquake? There is absolutely nothing I can do about it. It DOESNT concern me.
That, and almost half a million people die every day. Growing up in this era, the shock factor is quite low.
Quote from: Duckling' on July 06, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.
Yep. I looked. I looked all over that page, and I didn't find any alternative scientific theory.
What I did find was a cartoon-illustrated mockery of science that states that scientists are finding evolution because they aren't looking for God. Scientist cannot arrive at conclusions based on existing assumptions that have no basis in fact, and as a result, they cannot arrive at conclusions based on framing evidence around the pre-existing conclusions that have already been made by a holy book.
Instead, they objectively take evidence and fit a theory around it, and it just so happens that what they find fits the theory of evolution.
Oh, and I'll tell you a secret. I think they might not be looking to propose an alternative scientific theory at all, but rather are trying to debase science and prove that someone went to the trouble of
creating platypi, among other things.
You didn't read it all, then. Inside is a very simple theory. You just have to read it.
Might I also add that it addressed some of the flaws of evolution.
(I' am a neutral person in this debate, and I may or may not participate in this debate in the future on either side's behalf)
Quote from: Bugfartboy on July 07, 2011, 05:19:07 PM
You didn't read it all, then. Inside is a very simple theory. You just have to read it.
Might I also add that it addressed some of the flaws of evolution.
Buggy, I think Ducky would like for you to present this theory instead of just telling him that there is one. That, at least I believe, would make things much simpler.
I confirm Duskling's expectation of my sentiment on the matter. Please enlighten me. I really don't have time to read through all that . I noticed it was heavily biased towards creationism, and decided that any theory it proposed was likely to have Intelligent Design elements, which is a nonscientific theory. Not what I'm looking for.
And I think both of you should do your homework and read this straightforwardly-laid-out site on the inequality of ID. I think you'll find it quite interesting. Especially the bits about irreducible complexity, if you're into the whole ID thing.
This site (http://www.lclane2.net/references.html) makes a few points about scientific literature, and how alternative theories that are open to research and experimentation (as is necessary in a scientific theory) have not been proposed in the scientific community. If so, tell me about it.
I was wondering when you'd say that. So it's alright for me to have to read articles biased towards secular evolution, yet you find it absolutely appalling to have to read articles biased towards creationism?
Oops. Deary me. It's not an article, per se, so much as factual account by a scientist with a relevant degree, called to testify for a Nebraska couska court in an ID case.
I, however, refuse to read through an article filled with misinformation and poor and uninspired cartoon drawing.
EDIT: Yes, I finally read through all the drivel. No scientific theory was presented; there was only promotion of creationism and questioning of existing evolutionary ideas through false premises. Fun for the lowest common Christian denominator, but hardly an alternative. You're going to have to point out the science to me.
And the words are "all" and "right." There is no word spelled, "alright."
Actually, Ducky, alright is actually a word! *mock gasp of surprise*
Definition of "Alright" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Alright)
Alrighty then. So where does this new genetic information needed to evolve come from?
In the last 4000 years no new species have domesticated.
That being said, every species that we assume have domesticated ever are based on theory.
Buggy, the usage note:
—Usage note
The form alright as a one-word spelling of the phrase all right in all of its senses probably arose by analogy with such words as already and altogether. Although alright is a common spelling in written dialogue and in other types of informal writing, all right is used in more formal, edited writing§; alright should only be used when describing how a living person speaks, or when correctness is not of importance.
Correctness is of importance, and "alright" is not all right with me.
Oh, and the genetic information comes from random mutation, by ~.5% per million years, or thereabouts.
Game Crazy Kid:
First of all, you're changing the topic.
Second of all, I think we can confirm scientifically that all the animals we have ever domesticated are, in fact, real, and that they are not, as you suggest, based on theory.
Quote from: Duckling′ on July 08, 2011, 11:51:22 AM
Game Crazy Kid:
First of all, you're changing the topic.
Second of all, I think we can confirm scientifically that all the animals we have ever domesticated are, in fact, real, and that they are not, as you suggest, based on theory.
Is that REALLY what you gathered from all that?
The point I was trying to make, is that no man alive has been an eye witness to evolution. It is no more plausible than me saying I saw Jesus walk on water.
QuoteOh, and the genetic information comes from random mutation, by ~.5% per million years, or thereabouts.
But doesn't mutation only changing pre-existing genes? So where does the new gene come from?
Nope. Mutation can occur in the form of copying, insertion from another chromosome out of context, deletion, or the changing of existing genetic code by errors in mitosis.
The new gene comes from additional copying, along with faulty transcription.
Quote from: Game Crazy Kid on July 08, 2011, 02:57:37 PM
The point I was trying to make, is that no man alive has been an eye witness to evolution. It is no more plausible than me saying I saw Jesus walk on water.
Maybe that is because, 1) At first, man hadn't bothered to look due to religion and the like, 2) We cannot keep an eye on animals in the wild, and 3) (Most likely) Because evolution may take up to
billions of years to occur.
But is that really new? Isn't it based off of already existing genes?
Yep. We're all just based off of mutations on bacteria. Fun, eh? We take morphological shifts that require little in the way of speciation, and alternate those with actual developments based on mutations that give an organism an edge.
If you want to see it that way, we're all very old potatoes (figuratively). I like to think that each of us has completely new genetics that simply bear a strong resemblance to those of a parent because of how the newer genes were produced.
Well, the problem with the whole mutation thing is:
A) Most mutations are not passed down, as a mutation must occur in a gamete to be passed down to offspring.
B) Most mutations either have no effect or they have a negative effect and/or kill you. Now, there are some mutations that are beneficial, but...
C) Mutations, while they can have a variety of effects, and can even add new DNA to a gene pool, but are incapable of producing new chromosome sets. While mutations may lead to more genes in a gene pool, they do not lead to more DNA passed down to offspring, which would be necessary in order for bacteria with a single chromosome to evolve into a human with 42 chromosomes.
Sometimes there are characteristics that skip a generation for many generation, defying statistical probability, and sometimes two blue-eyed parents have a brown-eyed child. Mendelian genetics can't explain these, and you need to delve further into the subject.
Imagine there is a gene, created by a mutation, that tells a cell to create an extra chromosome. This extra chromosome may be harmful, and the organism might not pass it on. But if it does, that chromosome isn't part of the original genetic replication system in the organism, and during reproduction (binary fission or sexual), this new chromosome, or even both, are highly subject to change. Perhaps, out of thousands of offspring, this bacterium produced a few score that manage to take the second chromosome and do something useful with it. Also, with the system of plasmids in bacteria, different strains can exchange beneficial genetic data, which could eventually become included into the second chromosome.
Also, I must insist that bacteria don't have chromosomes. They have a single, long loop of DNA that tends to be in the center of the bacterium.
Addressing your last point first, this is the definition of chromosome from biology-online.org.
Chromosome: A structure within the cell that bears the genetic material as a threadlike linear strand of DNA bonded to various proteins in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, or as a circular strand of DNA (or RNA in some viruses) in the cytoplasm of prokaryotes and in the mitochondrion and chloroplast of certain eukaryotes. Yes, bacteria only have a single loop of DNA. That is their chromosome.
Now, I since your first point was more of a suggestion, I won't address it, but I will address your second point. You ask me to imagine a gene that tells the cell to create an extra chromosome. First of all, there isn't one. Secondly, if there was one, and if the cell did create an extra chromosome, the cell would die or, in a multicellular organism, develop into a cancer, as extra chromosomes are all but certain to have a negative effect. Having an extra chromosome (or missing a chromosome) is called aneuploidy, a chromosomal abnormality that leads to negative effects. In fact, the word aneuploid is taken from the Greek words meaning "not","good", and "fold." Like I stated earlier, most mutations have negative effects, and aneuploid is all but certain to have negative effects. The only reason I am using the term "all but certain" instead of certain is because I am not an expert on aneuploidy. However, no article that I have read mentioned any benefits. An extra or missing chromosome may lead to cancers, down syndrome, or a number of other bad conditions.
Aneuploidy occurs during cell division when chromosomes do not separate properly between tow cells. Since bacterial chromosomes do not separate (since they are never attached) it would be highly unlikely (I'm only using "highly unlikely" instead of "impossible" because I am not, as stated before, an expert on the subject) for aneuploidy to occur in bacteria. If it did indeed occur in bacteria, the bacteria would be unable to function properly and die. If a bacteria did indeed have a gene with the marvelous ability to encode a protein that would make an extra chromosome from scratch, there would be no reason for the cell would not be able to replicate the extra chromosome, as the chromosome would react with the enzymes responsible for DNA replication just like any other chromosome.
The main weakness of your argument comes from the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a gene capable of creating an extra chromosome, as such a gene does not exist today. In fact, it is probably impossible for a gene to create an extra chromosome, as genes are blueprints for protein, not nucleic acids. You ask me to imagine a gene that could something when there is no evidence that any gene could do what you described. Asking me to imagine a gene that could do what you said is worse than a Christian asking someone to imagine a God who could create everything. At least God is God, and by being God he is understood to be all powerful. If God existed, he could indeed create everything. But no gene could do what you said. You claim to be objective and only believing in the facts, but claiming such a gene to exist would require wishful thinking or a determination to assert evolution's correctness. If your explanation, "Imagine there is a gene..." is fine, then why would you be against someone saying "Imagine there is a God..."? Saying God did something is much better than saying a gene did something that it can't do. I can't imagine a gene that could do something that no gene can do. It simply isn't possible. Why do you say that you only pay attention to the facts when you come up with something like a gene that creates an extra chromosome? At least Christians admit they put faith in God.
Rob, I have no idea who you are. But you are one smart son-of-a-gun.
Okay. There is to be a rational conclusion here; I don't know enough about bacterial-to-eukaryotic evolution to adequately defend evolution. You manage to have been educated to an extent where you can. Good for you.
Christians have faith in Christianity and Christ.
I support the theory of evolution, and know that evolution has gone scientifically unchallenged. If your arguments held sway, they would have been thoroughly discussed in the scientific literature by now, and evolution might have been questioned by a large portion of the scientific community. They have not, and it has not. Thus, I must conclude that your arguments are unsound, and are based in false premises or lack of knowledge, as were mine.
Translation: "I have no idea what you are saying, but since someone smarter than me hasn't questioned it yet, it's probably wrong"
Really, Duckling?
I was thinking the same thing. My question is, has it ever occured to you that maybe they havn't questioned it because they know it might harm evolution?
No, they couldn't have questioned it. Unless Duckling missed one of those big science discussion meetings that he always goes to. You know, to find out what they talk about.
Scientists in the relevant fields to this debate are constantly reviewing the evidence for evolution. I sincerely doubt that they would have such an affinity for a particular theory so as to ignore the principles of science and refuse to thoroughly examine new evidence brought to light.
And no, Deagon-X, that is not the meaning of my statement. It is closer to,
"I understand what you say, and acknowledge it as a valid point. However, seeing as those more qualified to argue this topic than either of us have had precisely this debate and revealed no conclusive points that are destructive to evolution, I think that your point must have a counterargument which I have yet to find. The current limits of my knowledge prevent me from generating this counterargument myself."
That said, I'll be examining the scientific literature to find said counterargument.
Quote from: Osirus on July 15, 2011, 04:15:59 PM
And no, Deagon-X, that is not the meaning of my statement. It is closer to,
"I understand what you say, and acknowledge it as a valid point. However, seeing as those more qualified to argue this topic than either of us have had precisely this debate and revealed no conclusive points that are destructive to evolution, I think that your point must have a counterargument which I have yet to find. The current limits of my knowledge prevent me from generating this counterargument myself."
Using bigger words does not make the point any different.
"I dont understand your points. But since someone that would understand your points hasn't addressed them yet, they are probably wrong."
Labeling what I say as "just ... bigger words" doesn't mean you can change what they mean. Here's simple.
I understand you.
(That sentence directly opposes your summation, and is the first two words of my first summation. Really!)
But people that could counter your points haven't found a need to, they are most probably irrelevant in attempting to prove that evolution is false.
Rob, I have no doubt that your questions need answering; I'm not that person, and I am less informed on the topic than you, but your question is most likely answerable within the theory of evolution. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't give you an adequate answer. Don't ask me.
That said, I tried to answer the question using my knowledge (or lack thereof) of the topic, and failed.
Deagonx, now I ask you: do you understand his points?
Quote from: Osirus on July 15, 2011, 07:45:18 PM
Deagonx, now I ask you: do you understand his points?
Yes, I do understand his points. Is it such a shocker than I am learned about Eukaryotas, chromosomes, DNA and the like?
I hope it isn't, my first 3 books in science class were about that whole bit.
Well, I've been digging around, and while it appears scientist have published a lot of research on mutations or evolution of genes, they haven't published to much about chromosomes. Go the the evolution wiki, look up chromosomes, and you'll see my point. Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you know that my point has been argued somewhere else, and that someone has come up with a counter argument or counter point?
Sorry for not having been up on my facts. The bacteria-to-eukaryote evolution is explained by a few hypotheses.
One is that fusion of bacterial cells occurred (usually this is the result of one trying to, unsuccessfully, eat another), and the resulting organism was a eubacterium -- the nuclear structure as it is today was devuloped from the fusion of such a eubacterium and a virus, an archaeon, or another DNA-holding organic structure. This makes quite a bit of sense, and doesn't require large amount of mutation -- just a chance fusion.
Rob, have you heard of the grain Triticale, featured in a Star Trek episode, "The Trouble with Tribbles"?
So now you have given us the hypotheses of evolution.
Reason being?
Well, now, you must not have been paying attention.
These hypotheses give Rob the answers that he's/she's looking for: how life got from bacteria to eukaryote, and how chromosomes increased in number. I'll tell him/her about the latter when he/she responds.
And what does evolution have to do with the base idea of existence?
Little. But that's where the conversation went. Then, you criticized me, implying that I sounded stupid my admitting my non-knowledge.
I was simply defending a position.
No, I have not heard of the grain Triticale.
Then you would not be aware of the fact that it has six chromosomes.
You would also be unaware of where it acquired these six chromosomes: allopolyploidy, where an organism acquires a number of chromosomes that is the sum of those of its parents.
Triticale happens to be sterile, and cannot provide an explanation in an evolutionary context, but the Triangle of U also exhibits this behavior. Eukaryotes of different numbers of chromosomes that are closely related evolutionarily can produce fertile offspring, and this offspring can continue to evolve. This explains many instances of increase in chromosome count.
I am aware of allopolyploidy. However, as you said, the organism acquires a number of chromosomes that is the sum of those of its parents. The extra DNA is inherited. Since bacteria reproduce asexually via binary fission, this explanation wouldn't work.
I already gave the bacterial explanation. This is for eukaryotes. Bacteria devloped into eubacteria and eukaryotes (most likely) by chance fusion.
My turn to admit I haven't done enough research. Bacteria eat things by emitting enzymes to break them down, then absorbs them via osmosis or active transport. So, how exactly would a bacteria fuse with another if its way of eating is to break down the food into small pieces that it can actually absorb. It would be one thing to absorb broken down nucleic acids, but absorbing an intact extra chromosome is pushing it a bit. And, I'm currently ignoring the fact that this would lead to aneuploidy which would almost certainly mean bad things for the cell.
Okay, first, I'd like to say, "Thank you," for putting up with my improvised theorisation. You would appear to have had at least a high school education or perhaps even a college education on the matter, making me completely unqualified to be answering your questions; I just finished junior high. I must seem like an idiot.
So even if I sometimes phrase things eloquently, or get annoyed at improper grammar, I really haven't been taught much, and I'm making this up as I go. Oh, and your grammar is awesome. You seem to be the only person here able to put commas in the right place (I used to think that was the user formerly known as im2smart4u, but I was wrong).
That said, I'd like to pursue a different tack, utilizing your knowledge to make me more learned and hopefully come to a definite conclusion about bacterial evolution into eukaryotes. What do you know about symbiosis among bacteria? Is it possible that bacteria could develop such a mutual dependency that their life cycles become intertwined?
The theory behind eukaryote evolution states that 2 types of bacteria developed a mutualistic relationship, and gradually grew completely dependent on each other. However, this view is only held because scientists believe that mitochondria and other similar organelles (namely, chloroplasts) originated from bacteria, and they needed an explanation for this. I hate to say it that way, but if you looked up all the evidence and support for that theory, it would focus on the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria. The evidence doesn't really try to support the possibility of mutual dependency, it just assumes that it could happen. I would comment more, but I'm getting a bit tired. Maybe I'll finish up later.
I'm skeptical.
So, even though the evidence provided isn't convincing, I would like to ask if you find the idea of symbionts forming eukaryotes plausible.
The current theory states that a larger prokaryote "swallowed" a smaller one, and the two formed a symbiotic relationship. The problem with this is that prokaryotes eat by breaking down their food and absorbing it in smaller parts. Prokaryotes have cell walls; I do not think a prokaryote would have been able to take in another small prokaryote like the current theory describes without breaking it down. I find the current theory problematic at best.
The problem about many of the current biological theories is that it is just about impossilbe to prove that one theory definetly happened (which is probably why they are referred to as theories). With only some indirect evidence that may support existing theories, it should be impossible to teach the theories as facts, yet they very often are. For example, it is probably impossible to know with absolute certainty that evolution happened. What we do know is that life exists in a certain way today, and that certain creatures were alive in the past that are not alive now, and that creatures that survive to reproduce often pass their traits down to their offspring (and a bunch of other stuf that I'm leaving out to keep this short). Science's best explanation for all of this is evolution. Though it may be correct, it will always remain a theory because it is impossible to tell exactly what happened that led to life on this planet. If another theoy was proposed, ir would be no better and probably not much worse, as it could not be proved to have definetly happened either. The bottom line is, it is impossible to know. There isn't enough avaliable evidence to prove that something must have happened. In the end, you just have to trust that someone has the right answer and just go with it.
Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.
Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."
Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.
Quote from: Duckling on October 05, 2011, 11:47:06 PM
Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.
Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."
Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.
The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.
So why did he even need to take animals in the first place? I'm sure that there were some animals of a similar species elsewhere in the world.
And, since you're so willing to have this conversation, what do you think about carbon dating?
Quote from: Duckling on October 06, 2011, 06:30:48 PM
So why did he even need to take animals in the first place? I'm sure that there were some animals of a similar species elsewhere in the world.
And, since you're so willing to have this conversation, what do you think about carbon dating?
He took animals to repopulate that region.
What is carbon dating?
Quote from: Deagonx on October 06, 2011, 08:15:59 AM
Quote from: Duckling on October 05, 2011, 11:47:06 PM
Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.
Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."
Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.
The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.
*facepalm*
Quote from: bugfartboy on October 07, 2011, 06:42:33 AM
Quote from: Deagonx on October 06, 2011, 08:15:59 AM
Quote from: Duckling on October 05, 2011, 11:47:06 PM
Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.
Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."
Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.
The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.
*facepalm*
Hey, you, yeah you. The idiot. If the flood wasn't regional every species on earth would be based on incest. And how are there so many different species of dogs?
Dude. Read it again and tell me where it says planet or earth.
Oh, don't worry about that. Very frequently, small populations of organisms, especially those which reproduce rapidly, engage in interbreeding with blood-related members of the population; while this sort of breeding can produce deadly combinations of recessive traits, it also encourages genetic variation overall. Even if large numbers of offspring are unfit to survive, those that are may have changed in highly useful ways.
And I wouldn't expect anyone to find "planet" or "earth" inside the Bible except when referring to the earth beneath someone's feet; the Indo-European world believed that the earth was flat until after the Dark Ages (a good 4500 years or so, even by the Bible's reckoning).
Dog breeding is based on selecting traits of dogs that one wishes to replicate until reaching a living paradigm of that trait. Any dog breeder can tell you that. However, there are only seven actual species of the genus Canis: lupus, audustus, aureus, latrans, mesomelas, rufus, and simensis. The dog is only a subspecies of lupus. The different breeds of dog as we know them are subvariations of the supspecies Canis lupus familiaris.
Quote from: Duckling on October 09, 2011, 01:19:59 PM
Snip
Am I the only one that thinks the sudden arise of prokaryotes seems just stupid?
First. How, how would a cell form? And how likely is it that SOMEHOW DNA also formed. Ribosomes, flagellum, pili, cytoplasm all came with it in a neat little bundle called life. Out of nowhere?
Second, how did it survive? You may or may not realize it. But there are very very few foods that weren't once living. Meat, Cereal (grains), apple and orange juice.
Life comes from life. If there was one prokaryote cell how could it have survived as the only cell on the planet? No trees, no grass. Those didn't come til about 2 billion. BILLION years later.
The entire thing is a theory. Why is it even taught in schools? It's stupid. I can understand teaching proven science, but not mere theories. Clearly, cells exist. Water exists. Trees exist. But you can't teach a theory made up by a bunch of scientists on what happened billions upon billions of years ago!
I know I've been gone a while, and I know no one has posted here a while, but I just have to interject.
Quote from: Duckling on October 09, 2011, 01:19:59 PM
And I wouldn't expect anyone to find "planet" or "earth" inside the Bible except when referring to the earth beneath someone's feet; the Indo-European world believed that the earth was flat until after the Dark Ages (a good 4500 years or so, even by the Bible's reckoning).
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
My bad. The flat earth is over nothing.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:44:55 PM
Am I the only one that thinks the sudden arise of prokaryotes seems just stupid?
First. How, how would a cell form? And how likely is it that SOMEHOW DNA also formed. Ribosomes, flagellum, pili, cytoplasm all came with it in a neat little bundle called life. Out of nowhere?
Well, through many, many years of evolution. And yes, pretty much out of nowhere.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:44:55 PMSecond, how did it survive? You may or may not realize it. But there are very very few foods that weren't once living. Meat, Cereal (grains), apple and orange juice.
That one's easier-autotrophs. Organisms that make their own food. IIRC, chloroplasts are thought to have originally been prokaryotes that were absorbed by eukaryotes later on. So it's possible that chloroplasts were formed from the original prokaryotes, and those prokaryotes used photosynthesis (or a similar process) in order to survive. Everything built up from there. There are very few foods that weren't once living-but you can make sugar from inorganic materials.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:44:55 PMLife comes from life. If there was one prokaryote cell how could it have survived as the only cell on the planet? No trees, no grass. Those didn't come til about 2 billion. BILLION years later.
That's true, life does come from life. According to experiments, however, life can come from inorganic material. The question I would pose is this: How many times did this happen? If life can appear once on the atmosphere of early earth, why can't it happen multiple times?
It survived, as stated above, by making its own food. There weren't any predators at that point.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:44:55 PMThe entire thing is a theory. Why is it even taught in schools? It's stupid. I can understand teaching proven science, but not mere theories. Clearly, cells exist. Water exists. Trees exist. But you can't teach a theory made up by a bunch of scientists on what happened billions upon billions of years ago!
True, it is a theory. However, gravity is called a 'theory' by the scientific community, and I doubt anyone would dispute that gravity is real. It certainly isn't infallible at this point, but it is the most intelligent guess we can make at this point in time, which is why it is taught.
I wasn't going to respond to deagonx originally, but since you bring it up, yes; there is no such thing as proven science.
And, as the aternative is if anything a more preposterous
theory (Creationism), what precisely should be taught?
People recieve a religious educaton. People also recieve a scientific education. I fully support that the current most prominent scientific theory being taught in schools as part of the
scientific education, and people being taught various religious theories in their
religious education.
Quote from: Deagonx on October 09, 2011, 02:44:55 PM
2 billion. BILLION years later
Hang on. You accept that the world is over 2 billion years old?
I'm terribly sorry to pop out of the blue, but please clarify for me. Where did any opposition of the theory that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old come from?
There was never any actual argument, I believe, but I was under the impression that the bible indicated the world to be somewhat . . . younger.
Come to think of it, I think I recall some extreme bible literalists stating that, according to the bible, the world is about 6,000 years old.
Yeah. Deagonx, haven't you pointed us to some links to young earth websites as backing up your arguments? Or am I mistaken?