Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Marvolo]

And what about that do you find so hard to grasp? It took billions of years just to get started and gain momentum.

Hilarious that creationists will somehow find this implausible, but have no problem pointing to something as fantastical as an 'all powerful' designer who one day on a whim decided to just create/design something called life. One can't sit there and try to scrutinize real and applicable science when you have no scientific ground whatsoever to claim otherwise.

Lets call it what it is, magic. Magic is just easier for some to accept.

What i find common amongst creationists is that they cant grasp the concept of billions of years the overall processes that evolution went through. They think that scientists are saying life just popped up. As if scientists are saying that it all happened overnight. Oh wait, that sounds like what creationists believe about their myth. Maybe thats the problem. They try to visualise evolution as happening on as ludicrous time scale and in the same ludicrous methods as their creation myth did.

Whats more plausable? The natural processes of the natural universe dictated by the natural laws of said universe or magic did it?

Science is real. Magic is not.

 

[KalMart]

Lets call it what it is, magic. Magic is just easier for some to accept.

What i find common amongst creationists is that they cant grasp the concept of billions of years the overall processes that evolution went through. They think that scientists are saying life just popped up. As if scientists are saying that it all happened overnight. Oh wait, that sounds like what creationists believe about their myth. Maybe thats the problem. They try to visualise evolution as happening on as ludicrous time scale and in the same ludicrous methods as their creation myth did.

Whats more plaussble? The natural processes of the natural universe dictated by the natural laws of said universe or magic did it?

Science is real. Magic is not.

I've said this before about some parts of religion, in that it gives the word 'faith' a bad name.

 

[Marvolo]

I've said this before about some parts of religion, in that it gives the word 'faith' a bad name.

Well there is a difference between faith and ignoring facts. Creationists are ignoring facts and that is called ignorance. A very different thing.

 

[KalMart]

Well there is a difference between faith and ignoring facts. Creationists are ignoring facts and that is called ignorance. A very different thing.

One would hope so....or unsubtantiated and blind faith, or using it as an excuse. But alas.

 

[Marvolo]

One would hope so....or unsubtantiated and blind faith, or using it as an excuse. But alas.

Its sad they use this proclimation of faith in sermons like its a beautiful and powerful thing to be proud of. If they got up there and called it what it is, ignoring facts and purposefully choosing ignorance, they might not be so proud. If they want to believe magic created everything thats fine but they need to realize what they believe isnt what is real and factual. I mean if someone wants to believe Oa and the Green Lantern corp is real we might indulge them but when that person tries to pass laws and push others to believe what they believe we would all say "no, this has to stop." So why do allow the same for religion? Anyone can believe what they want but they need to keep it to themselves and stop trying to pass laws and push their fantasies and mythology on us. Anyone has a right to their beliefs but i have the right to tell anyone that its bat**** crazy.

And before someone says "Well, you believe in evolution." No i dont believe in evolution. I followed the facts and data to their logifal conclusion which is evolution. That is not belief; that is logic.

 

[KalMart]

Its sad they use this proclimation of faith in sermons like its a beautiful and powerful thing to be proud of. If they got up there and called it what it is, ignoring facts and purposefully choosing ignorance, they might not be so proud. If they want to believe magic created everything thats fine but they need to realize what they believe isnt what is real and factual. I mean if someone wants to believe Oa and the Green Lantern corp is real we might indulge them but when that person tries to pass laws and push others to believe what they believe we would all say "no, this has to stop." So why do allow the same for religion? Anyone can believe what they want but they need to keep it to themselves and stop trying to pass laws and push their fantasies and mythology on us. Anyone has a right to their beliefs but i have the right to tell anyone that its bat**** crazy.

And before someone says "Well, you believe in evolution." No i dont believe in evolution. I followed the facts and data to their logifal conclusion which is evolution. That is not belief; that is logic.

I think there is a lot of beauty to be found in it as a concept...poetically, humanistically. But it does shoot itself in the foot when it turns to denial and ignorance as a defense against...well...evolving in its own right.

And yes, asking if one 'believes' in evolution as if it were a 'faith' itself is like asking if one believes in astronomy, or chemistry, or physics.

 

[Alpha Born]

Ok you need to read up on an elemntary textbook because clearly you missed this basic info. Spontaneous Generation that existed up until 1864 hasnt been accepted since 1864. Not by any scientist anyways. It stated that organic matter could just pop up from literally nothing. Something from nothing.

Where did you hear or read that at? Spontaneous generation didn't teach that organic matter can come from nothing.

Spontaneous generation - a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material Also called abiogenesis.

The current models of abiogenesis state that organic matter can only come from the combination of elements present on the early earth. To test this in 1952, in the*Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2),hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. As for why we dont see this process today, "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Charels Darwin

In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

No, the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 took methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, added a spark and created two amino acids. It did not create any DNA or the complex system necessary to read DNA. The experiment did not create proteins or the equipment to fold the proteins into useful structures necessary for a living cell. Even with intelligence, a controlled environment and chemicals man cannot create life. Miller-Urey experiment created more problems for evolutionists than it solved.

 

[moviedoors]

I think there is a lot of beauty to be found in it as a concept...poetically, humanistically. But it does shoot itself in the foot when it turns to denial and ignorance as a defense against...well...evolving in its own right.

And yes, asking if one 'believes' in evolution as if it were a 'faith' itself is like asking if one believes in astrology, or chemistry, or physics.

Astology or astronomy?

 

[KalMart]

Spontaneous generation - a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material Also called abiogenesis.

Neither evolution nor current scientific explanations for the origins of life cite that either. None of it happened rapidly into the current complete and complex forms we know of today...it took an incredibly long time, progressed over a very long time, and the stages are ongoing.



Some religions on the other hand, if taken literally, propose that the first human was fully formed from sand.

 

[KalMart]

Astology or astronomy?

Meant the latter...danke.

 

[moviedoors]

Wait, so you put astrology in the same class as chemistry and physics?

 

[KalMart]

Wait, so you put astrology in the same class as chemistry and physics?

I meant the latter (astronomy...the one that's an actual science)...as I fixed in the original. Sorry..I'm typiung fast. In response to this question....**** no. t:

That's like putting palm-reading right up there with fluid mechanics. "Tell me..." (holds out hand) "....will my jet crash?"

 

[Marvolo]

I think there is a lot of beauty to be found in it as a concept...poetically, humanistically. But it does shoot itself in the foot when it turns to denial and ignorance as a defense against...well...evolving in its own right.

And yes, asking if one 'believes' in evolution as if it were a 'faith' itself is like asking if one believes in astrology, or chemistry, or physics.

And that is the key. They can have their faith and beliefs for it is beautiful that humans have and understand these concepts but they have to unserstand and accept that their beliefs and faith have no place in scientific studies and knowledge. Their beliefs of magic arent reality. They dont want us encroaching in their religious affairs and id appreaciate if they would stay out of ours. Blind Faith and belief and religion have no place in a scientific classroom or a lab.

 

[KalMart]

And that is the key. They can have their faith and beliefs for it is beautiful that humans have and understand these concepts but they have to unserstand and accept that their beliefs and faith have no place in scientofic studies and knowledge. They dont want us encroaching in their religious affairs and id appreaciate if they would stay out of ours. Blind Faith and belief and religion have no place in a scientific classroom or a lab.

But as I pointed out before, it's also up to people not to use science as a tool/support for ridiculing or devaluing religion as well. If it's scientifically true, then it should have equal value in being truth and knowledge for all. The problem, again, is that it uniquely conflicts with a core ingredient of theism...the concept of everything and everyone owing their very existence to the whim and active design of a sentient 'creator'. That's a tough one to reassess if it's what you believe. And it's not helped by gloating and ridicule, as some are wont to do while touting scientific truths.

 

[Marvolo]

But as I pointed out before, it's also up to people not to use science as a tool/support for ridiculing or devaluing religion as well. If it's scientifically true, then it should have equal value in being truth and knowledge for all. The problem, again, is that it uniquely conflicts with a core ingredient of theism...the concept of everything and everyone owing their very existence to the whim and active design of a sentient 'creator'. That's a tough one to reassess if it's what you believe. And it's not helped by gloating and ridicule, as some are wont to do while touting scientific truths.

Gloating and ridicule sadly comes from both sides. I do it myself if i get carried away and ive been known to act like a jackass. Something im not proud of but passion gets the better of me at times. Some may even find ridicule in me calling creationists beliefs magic but it is what it is. I was raised Baptist and am surrounded by christians and most are ok with me not believing as they do but ive caught flak for my differing viewpoints. A few i know wont even talk to athiest and evolutionists and ridicule them for their "ignorance". Its all kind of stupid when you think about it. Science is meant to help mankind and expand our horizins and yet its rebuked by many. The purpose of a good christians life is to accept the Lord as your savior, do good works, and lead other people along the path. I dont understand why they try to ridicule and fight evolution when evolution in no way harms any of those goals. To accept evolution doesnt make you any less saved in the grace of God.

It irked me going to church and hearing a preacher ignorantly denounce evolution with false accusations and arguments against data that has been removed from the model all together. The biggest one is them claiming Darwin said we came from monkeys. I have heard this more times than i care to count and i despise someone who denounces and damns something without learning the facts. Its purposefully misleading and doesnt belong at the pulpit where truth is suppossed to be.

 

[KalMart]

Gloating and ridicule sadly comes from both sides. I do it myself if i get carried away and ive been known to act like a jackass. Something im not proud of but passion gets the better of me at times. Some may even find ridicule in me calling creationists beliefs magic but it is what it is. I was raised Baptist and am surrounded by christians and most are ok with me not believing as they do but ive caught flak for my differing viewpoints. A few i know wont even talk to athiest and evolutionists and ridicule them for their "ignorance". Its all kind of stupid when you think about it. Science is meant to help mankind and expand our horizins and yet its rebuked by many. The purpose of a good christians life is to accept the Lord as your savior, do good works, and lead other people along the path. I dont understand why they try to ridicule and fight evolution when evolution in no way harms any of those goals. To accept evolution doesnt make you any less saved in the grace of God.

It irked me going to church and hearing a preacher ignorantly denounce evolution with false accusations and arguments against data that has been removed from the model all together. The biggest one is them claiming Darwin said we came from monkeys. I have heard this more times than i care to count and i despise someone who denounces and damns something without learning the facts. Its purposefully misleading and doesnt belong at the pulpit where truth is suppossed to be.

Yep...which is why there will always be holdouts. But the fact that it immediately puts the burden religion to adapt is seen as a concession not matter what....that can be hard to accept if you're on the short end. In that respect, maybe those on the 'easier' end need to take the higher road...but it' just as hard to ask those who do find religion nonsensical to somehow act as if they don't.

I think you can also at least sensibly assess that resurrection is impossible and irrational, and that the proposed historicity of it is unreliable and does nothing to make it likely or plausible. Hence, it probably didn't happen.....but then, again, you can't really be a Christian without buying that very premise on faith....so how would one propose that someone remain a Christian but just not believe that part of it...aside from maybe converting to Judaism?

 

[Alpha Born]

And evolution doesn't propose that they just popped up, fully-formed, out of nothing. It took a long time to get there. Hello?

I never said that evolution taught that life just popped up fully-formed. HAHA!

And again, the reason why that's long dismissed as an 'argument' is that it ignores so much that we know about chemistry, microbiology, and the time required for compounds and proteins etc .to eventually form organisms. You need to find better and newer tools, instead of beating a long dead horse 'again'.

Again. Prove to me that Abiogenesis is possible.

The one that we know happened.

Which one do you know happened??? The word evolution has six different and unrelated meanings or stages.

I don't think you have a grasp on what real science is. Evolution of life and species isn't hypothetical.

Evolution is hypothetical.

The steps of the scientific method, which most of us learned in high school science classes, are simple: [1] Observe data, [2] Make an hypothesis, [3] Test the hypothesis, [4] If it passes the tests, make it a theory, [5] Test and retest, [6] If it passes all tests, make it a law.

So, how does one test the hypothesis of evolution? The obvious answer is that one cannot test this hypothesis. It is not possible to create experiments which will either support or defeat this particular hypothesis.

Evolution, which is gradual change, cannot be tested in a laboratory experiment. How does one observe 13 billion years of gradual change in a laboratory? One does not. One can not.

Scientists cannot observe events that took place billions of years ago. There were no witnesses to write down what happened. There were no cameras to record the events. The hypothesis of evolution is built on data scientists are not able to see or recreate.

The evolution of human beings is said to have involved the gradual transition of creatures from primates (apes) to humans. That is the hypothesis. But how can one create experiments to support this hypothesis? In all the recorded history we have, apes remain apes and humans remain humans. No one has ever seen evolution of species taking place, and no one can create a situation in which it can take place. In order for this hypothesis, that primates gradually evolved into humans, to be supported, experiments must be conducted that show this change taking place. It cannot be done.

Where did it come from if a designer did?

I don't know. Maybe I'll ask him if I ever see him.

No, it's because science says and shows it is through evidence and sound analysis/calculation...just like many sciences that even you may accept but don't see as an ideological or religious conflict.

Evolution is not even science.

I don't know what your true potential is, but you're obviously choosing to be either ignorant or in denial of it.

Now you're projecting yourself onto me.

 

[KalMart]

I never said that evolution taught that life just popped up fully-formed. HAHA!

You said you deny evolution to be true because you don't believe in abiogenesis...what it says about rapid and direct formation. Here's a news flash.....evolution doesn't either.

Comprende now?

Evolution is hypothetical.

No it isn't. Some sort of proof against it is.

Again. Prove to me that Abiogenesis is possible.

There's no need to.


Anything else?

 

[Thundercrack85]

He's obviously a troll. Don't waste your energy.

 

[KalMart]

He's obviously a troll. Don't waste your energy.

Don't worry, it obviously doesn't need much.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This is why I wish aliens would finally land. End a lot of these silly discussions.

 

[Alpha Born]

And what about that do you find so hard to grasp? It took billions of years just to get started and gain momentum.

Hilarious that creationists will somehow find this implausible, but have no problem pointing to something as fantastical as an 'all powerful' designer who one day on a whim decided to just create/design something called life. One can't sit there and try to scrutinize real and applicable science when you have no scientific ground whatsoever to claim otherwise.

That's based on spontaneous generation , which is impossible.

 

[KalMart]

That's based on spontaneous generation , which is impossible.

Again, you're missing/ignoring/sidestepping the part about it taking place very slowly, in many small stages over millions of years and changing conditions on the primordial earth.

And the question still stands...since science can only be questioned on a scientific level, what else do you think made it happen, and how is it any more sensible, scientifically sound or supported than evolution?

 

[KalMart]

This is why I wish aliens would finally land. End a lot of these silly discussions.

Someone will always come up with a way to call it a lie/conspiracy/illusion/'just a theory'.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's based on spontaneous generation , which is impossible.

Oh, alright. I'll bite.

Tell us, how did life begin? And (assuming you answer that) how do you know that?