Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#101 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 03:07 PM

if you want evidence, go and look for it. it is shockingly easy to find - natural history museum, biology department at any university... i will not waste my time outlining the evidence to someone who does not want to learn about it. i've wasted many hours in the past trying to do so, and its purposeless. a ring species is a ring species because it encompasses many intermediates. you cant say there isnt any intermediates in a ring species, a ring species IS a large group of intermediates.

View Post


Well. I'm not going to waste my time with something that's never been witnessed. If all your going to do is point, and say Macro-evolution is right just because you say so... then you'll need to go elsewhere.

I can't say there aren't any intermediates (breeds not species) when it comes to the breeding process either, but that most certainly isn't evolution either. Breeders, and Farmers deal with these things all the time, but evolutionist are quick to claim something like ring species is evolution, when it most certainly is not.

Also the fact that Ring Species can still mate with the so called seperate species in the immediate area absolutely prove it's not evolution, or even remotely close to Macro-evolution.

#102 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 December 2010 - 03:23 PM

if you want evidence, go and look for it. it is shockingly easy to find - natural history museum, biology department at any university... i will not waste my time outlining the evidence to someone who does not want to learn about it. i've wasted many hours in the past trying to do so, and its purposeless.

a ring species is a ring species because it encompasses many intermediates. you cant say there isnt any intermediates in a ring species, a ring species IS a large group of intermediates.

View Post


Yet YOU were the one who joined the site, so saying, "I'm wasting my time", is a bit rich.

Under the biologial species definition, an organism that can mate successfully and produce a viable organism are NOT different species, (despite as much as you want them to be different)

#103 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 19 December 2010 - 03:26 PM

macro-evolution at an individual level??? you arent seriously suggesting that evolution happens at all at the individual level, let alone macro-evolution, are you?

macro-evolution takes millions of years to happen, how in the world would anyone be able to see that? we can, however observe the rare phenomenon of a ring species, or currently living intermediate species, but these are very rare cases. we have to observe the evidence collected to support macro-evolution, and there is enough of it to conclude that it happened.

View Post


When you say millions of years you probably mean enough time to get really big numbers. With really big numbers than anything is possible.

But you don't need time to get big numbers. In fact time is only part of the numbers equations (off the top of my head):

numbers = reproductive cycle (time units) x children/reproductive cycle x time x population size reproducing


So there are 10^12 malaria in one human, millions of people have malaria and it reproduces fast than that is a huge number.

In other words we know what empirically what mutations can and can not do from huge numbers like malaria. Even with millions of years mutations and natural selection can not do much.

#104 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 19 December 2010 - 06:54 PM

Talk about what? What is " It" ?

View Post


"Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

That is the "It".

#105 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:03 PM

When you say millions of years you probably mean enough time to get really big numbers.  With really big numbers than anything is possible.

But you don't need time to get big numbers.  In fact time is only part of the numbers equations (off the top of my head):

numbers = reproductive cycle (time units) x children/reproductive cycle x time x population size reproducing
So there are 10^12 malaria in one human, millions of people have malaria and it reproduces fast than that is a huge number.

In other words we know what empirically what mutations can and can not do from huge numbers like malaria.  Even with millions of years mutations and natural selection can not do much.

View Post

Actually, quite the opposite. Since a smaller organism is less complex, it has less parts, and therefore, mutations are not so prominently featured that go as far as to change the physical appearance of the organism. Were talking about Bacteria, viruses, these things are decepitvely simple and dont have many specific physical characteristics or individual parts that require it to function perfectly. As opposed to a larger animal, which has different and multiple physical characteristics, with a complex array of different parts that work in tandem with each other to produce a working body.

Think of it as this. The simpler a machine is, the more easier it is for you to reproduce it without making a mistake. But the more complex a machine becomes, and the chances of making a mistake increase, because of all the complex parts required. And, the more complex the machine is, the more types of mistakes you can make.

#106 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:35 PM

Bacteria, viruses, these things are decepitvely simple and dont have many specific physical characteristics or individual parts that require it to function perfectly. As opposed to a larger animal, which has different and multiple physical characteristics, with a complex array of different parts that work in tandem with each other to produce a working body.

Think of it as this. The simpler a machine is, the more easier it is for you to reproduce it without making a mistake. But the more complex a machine becomes, and the chances of making a mistake increase, because of all the complex parts required. And, the more complex the machine is, the more types of mistakes you can make.

View Post


Absoute BS!

Go and read a book on Microbiology and you'll see how "simple" a bacteria is.


Your 2nd paragraph is not supported by the science. In humans we have correcting algorithums in our DNA that repairs the DNA and attempt to "undo" mutations. Hence the chance of making a mistake isn't increased.

Furthermore the bacterial DNA is more free flowing meaning its bases are more open to mutation. Human DNA is much more compacted, which protects it from mutation.

A point from this is, if mutations are the natural process of things to get better. Then why are there these processes in our very own bodies fighting the mutations and "slowing evolution".

#107 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 08:24 PM

"Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

That is the "It".

View Post


No, that's not what I asked what "IT" was. You explained nothing with this response, so let me try and make this a little bit better comprehendable.

Are you talking about Macro-evolution? Therefore is "IT" refering to Macro-evolution?

#108 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:58 AM

1 evolution is about the change life makes not the origin of it.
The reason you won't see any new life forms because the climate and chemistry is very different from what it used to be. ( we could discuss that further but i'm not sure if this would be the right section for it.)

2 well some one/thing has to be the first. How would that disprove evolution?

#109 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 06:18 AM

1 evolution is about the change life makes not the origin of it.

View Post


The model of macroevolution cannot divorce itself from the model of abiogenesis any more than you can divorce yourself from the fact that you had parents. The problem for atheists is that we can prove that you had parents.

The reason you won't see any new life forms because the climate and  chemistry is very different from what it used to be. ( we could discuss that further but i'm not sure if this would be the right section for it.)

View Post


The above is nothing more than a faith statement. You have absolutely no clue as to what the climate and chemistry of Earth was in any part of Pre-recorded history. Therefore, ANY discussion you entertain is presupposed, and laces with your faith-based “a priori” wants. Further, one you come to the realization that your world-view and philosophy is as (if not more) faith based then the theist’s, the sooner we can have fruitful the conversation will be.

2 well some one/thing has to be the first. How would that disprove evolution?

View Post


Yes, it would, because logically, rationally and scientifically, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for either.

#110 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 06:34 AM

The model of macroevolution cannot divorce itself from the model of abiogenesis any more than you can divorce yourself from the fact that you had parents. The problem for atheists is that we can prove that you had parents.

View Post


Sure it can. If a "divine creator" created the first life but then let it evolve on its own in to different species it would still meant evolution is correct for the origin of species. but abiogenesis would be incorrect for the origin of life.

The above is nothing more than a faith statement. You have absolutely no clue as to what the climate and chemistry of Earth was in any part of Pre-recorded history. Therefore, ANY discussion you entertain is presupposed, and laces with your faith-based “a priori” wants. Further, one you come to the realization that your world-view and philosophy is as (if not more) faith based then the theist’s, the sooner we can have fruitful the conversation will be. 

do you believe this is a faith baste statement because i have not provided a link to a scientific paper explain this and providing proof. Or because i/or some one else was not there to witness it?

Yes, it would, because logically, rationally and scientifically, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for either.

How would that not be logical? I mean there are plenty of other animals that show some for of intelligence, specially in our closer evolutionary family. Some even using simple tools. So intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air. We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.
the fact that we did so first doesn't mean much.

#111 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 06:58 AM

Sure it can. If a "divine creator" created the first life but then let it evolve on its own in to different species it would still meant evolution is correct for the origin of species. but abiogenesis would be incorrect for the origin of life.

do you believe this is a faith baste statement because i have not provided a link to a scientific paper explain this and providing proof. Or because i/or some one else was not there to witness it?
How would that not be logical? I mean there are plenty of other animals that show some for of intelligence, specially in our closer evolutionary family. Some even using simple tools. So intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air. We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.
the fact that we did so first doesn't mean much.

View Post


Yet it says you are an atheist, so believing in theistic evolution is against your own beliefs. Atheistic evolution REQUIRES abiogenesis as the begining of life.

Yet evolutionists say that intelligence, "evolved", aka "popped out of thin air". You do realise how complex the brain is, and how you just saying that our brains evolved intelligence just doesn't cut it.

#112 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:16 AM

Yet it says you are an atheist, so believing in theistic evolution is against your own beliefs. Atheistic evolution REQUIRES abiogenesis as the begining of life.

Yet evolutionists say that intelligence, "evolved", aka "popped out of thin air". You do realise how complex the brain is, and how you just saying that our brains evolved intelligence just doesn't cut it.

View Post

hence the quotation marks. Because i don't actually believe that.
The point was to simply show that believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you have to believe in abiogenesis. Nor that a fault in one means a fault in the other.
I could have just as easily said life has always been there or something. Or Just "i don't know". Neither of these would require me to stop being atheist nor disprove evolution. (while these are not positions i hold)

No it doesn't. It simply says that once that life existed it changed and slowly grew, changed and expanded. I do realize how complex our brains our. Thats exactly what evolution would suggest. Thats why we see different species with different levels of intelligence. Its shows us how our complex intelligence came to be, displaying small steps in the process from simple to very complex.

How does that "not cut it".

#113 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 08:06 AM

hence the quotation marks. Because i don't actually believe that.
The point was to simply show that believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you have to believe in abiogenesis. Nor that a fault in one means a fault in the other.
I could have just as easily said life has always been there or something. Or Just "i don't know". Neither of these would require me to stop being atheist nor disprove evolution. (while these are not positions i hold)

No it doesn't. It simply says that once that life existed it changed and slowly grew, changed and expanded. I do realize how complex our brains our. Thats exactly what evolution would suggest. Thats why we see different species with different levels of intelligence. Its shows us how our complex intelligence came to be, displaying small steps in the process from simple to very complex.

How does that "not cut it".

View Post


That is why we say that Atheistic evolution requires abiogenesis. No-one here is saying you cannot believe in theistic evolution.

Not thinking about the origin of life itself, means you are arguing for evolution out of incredulity, as you have a "theory" that has no origins / ties to reality.

Just saying so doesn't make it true, THAT is why it doesn't cut it. I can just as easily say, "I have been to the moon", and using your logic that is justifiably true.

Here is what a real scientist does

"Scientists gather observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. They collect data through observation and experimentation, and they formulate and test hypotheses."

http://www.sciencene...me-a-scientist/

#114 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:02 AM

That is why we say that Atheistic evolution requires abiogenesis. No-one here is saying you cannot believe in theistic evolution.

Not thinking about the origin of life itself, means you are arguing for evolution out of incredulity, as you have a "theory" that has no origins / ties to reality.

Just saying so doesn't make it true, THAT is why it doesn't cut it. I can just as easily say, "I have been to the moon", and using your logic that is justifiably true.

Here is what a real scientist does

"Scientists gather observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. They collect data through observation and experimentation, and they formulate and test hypotheses."

http://www.sciencene...me-a-scientist/

View Post

Like i already pointed out there are many other options or a atheist apart from abiogenesis, i've already shown you a few.

Really? so your more then willing to accept that evolution happened trough natural selection as long as the origin is not abiogenesis? So are you admitting evolution (both micro and macro) are actually correct?

Not thinking about the origin of life itself, means you are arguing for evolution out of incredulity, as you have a "theory" that has no origins / ties to reality.

No it simply means i am arguing based on the things i can observe instead of speculating. It has every tie to reality as what i am observing is reality and what the model is predicting conforms with reality.

What your doing is like saying you can't calculate the orbit of the planets just because your not sure how the universe was created.

Just saying so doesn't make it true, THAT is why it doesn't cut it. I can just as easily say, "I have been to the moon", and using your logic that is justifiably true.

thats right. But that also means that just because some one says "its not true", "it doesn't cut it", "its to complex" doesn't make it true either.

Here is what a real scientist does

"Scientists gather observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. They collect data through observation and experimentation, and they formulate and test hypotheses."

i know thats what science does and thats what evolution is.

The mistake you might be making is the assumption that these can only be done first hand. Not that matters to much.

#115 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:24 AM

Like i already pointed out there are many other options or a atheist apart from abiogenesis, i've already shown you a few.

Really? What did you say on the origin of life... All I saw was theistic evolution.. Which is not an option for an atheist.

Really? so your more then willing to accept that evolution happened trough natural selection as long as the origin is not abiogenesis? So are you admitting evolution (both micro and macro) are actually correct?

I said NOTHING about macro / micro, hence I don't see how it pertains to this conversation at all.

No it simply means i am arguing based on the things i can observe instead of speculating. It has every tie to reality as what i am observing is reality and what the model is predicting conforms with reality.

So what happens if evolutionary processes do not conform to reality. What would you do then?

If you are observing reality, but you cannot observe evolution then how does evolution have "every tie to reality", when unlike reality it cannot be observed?

From this if evolution did conform to reality then we would be able to observe it.


What your doing is like saying you can't calculate the orbit of the planets just because your not sure how the universe was created.

I didn't say anything about planets. Nor did I talk about the universe being created. Again you talk about things that have no bearing on the topic at hand.

thats right. But that also means that just because some one says "its not true", "it doesn't cut it", "its to complex" doesn't make it true either.

So you admit that saying something is true doesn't make it true... Then why attempt to do just that? If you already knew it defies logic, why try anyway?

i know thats what science does and thats what evolution is.

Could have fooled me  ;)

The mistake you might be making is the assumption that these can only be done first hand. Not that matters to much.

I haven't assumed anything. It is you who is assuming that science can be done when it isn't empirical and is subject to bias via interpretation.

Observation and experimentation can only be done first hand. That is the point. You cannot observe something happening after it occured nor can you test it. Hence your statement about science is not just first hand is false, according to what science actually is, (as I quoted for you)


View Post



#116 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:39 AM

Sure it can. If a "divine creator" created the first life but then let it evolve on its own in to different species it would still meant evolution is correct for the origin of species. but abiogenesis would be incorrect for the origin of life.

View Post


Actually, no, it would not. You attempts to posit logical fallacies here will not work. As I said earlier, within the context of the OP (which you are attempting to deviate further and further from), a “creator” has absolutely nothing to do with the OP scenario. So I would highly suggest you keep within that scenario when you attempt to answer the question(s).

But, to further dismantle you illogical hypothesis; A Creator scenario definitely “Would” be a part of so-called, and so-faithed, macro-evolution, because a/the “Creator” would have been the “evolver” of the original kinds/species.

Therefore, for atheistic macroevolution to even be feasible, it would also require an “evolver” such as abiogenesis (or the like).
Also, keep firmly in mind these facts; the atheistic worldview is bereft of ANY factual substantiation for either abiogenesis or macroevolution.

do you believe this is a faith baste statement because i have not provided a link to a scientific paper explain this and providing proof. Or because i/or some one else was not there to witness it?

View Post


No, it is a “faith baste statement” because the atheistic worldview is bereft of ANY factual substantiation for either abiogenesis or macroevolution! And, as long as you staunchly and/or dogmatically defend either Macroevolution and/or Abiogenesis as a fact, you are defending a religion (by definition).

How would that not be logical? I mean there are plenty of other animals that show some for of intelligence, specially in our closer evolutionary family. Some even using simple tools. So intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air. We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.
the fact that we did so first doesn't mean much.

View Post


Again, you are either ignoring the OP, or not reading the OP.

Firstly – you are totally (via “a priory” thought process) presupposing “our closer evolutionary family”.

Secondly – your misuse of “simple tools” hardly fit the OP definitions.

Thirdly – Abiogenesis , by definition, means “first” life from non life AND “first” intelligence from non-intelligence did indeed “just pop out of thin air”, in order for them to be first!

Fourthly – Your statement “We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.” Is totally faith based, and directly a result of your “a priori” wants, presupposed from your world view, with absolutely NO empirically substantiated evidence.

And finally – The presupposed “we were first” does mean quite a bit. And, it is not that we were (presupposedly) first, but we are the ONLY! And in a supposed millions (billions?) of years, out of all created kinds/species! So oyu are totally missing the entire point!


Therefore, are you going to continue to equivocate, misrepresent and waste time; or are you actually going to answer the OP, within the OP guidelines (context), actually using the OP???

If not, you won’t be here long.

#117 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 09:48 AM

The point was to simply show that believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you have to believe in abiogenesis. Nor that a fault in one means a fault in the other.

View Post


You are correct, you don’t have to believe in “abiogenesis”, but that is the ONLY current atheistic posit for origins right now.

And, yes, one is indeed a direct resultant of the other (if either is true). Therefore one does effect the other (if either are true)

I could have just as easily said life has always been there or something.

View Post


And that would be just as illogical, irrational and unscientific as abiogenesis”. And just as much a “faith-statement”. But, you have just as much a right to believe in that, as you do the flying spaghetti monster, an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars.

Or Just "i don't know".

View Post


That is an agnostic stance, and not an atheistic stance (which is conversion by definition). So, at this point, I would ask; Are you using a fake worldview, or are you simply confused?

Neither of these would require me to stop being atheist nor disprove evolution. (while these are not positions i hold)

View Post


Actually they disprove both. But, again, you have the right to believe in any religion you wish.

#118 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:07 AM

Really? What did you say on the origin of life... All I saw was theistic evolution.. Which is not an option for an atheist.

View Post

Well then maybe you should read it again. Like i already said a answer like "i don't know" would do. ANd i already explained to you that that example was to show the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Not to prove either theistic or atheistic evolution.

I said NOTHING about macro / micro, hence I don't see how it pertains to this conversation at all.

View Post

Some people here make the distinction thats why i used it. And i was just curious if you realized what you where saying.

So what happens if evolutionary processes do not conform to reality. What would you do then?

View Post

look for a theory that does conform to reality. But like you said thats a if.


I didn't say anything about planets. Nor did I talk about the universe being created. Again you talk about things that have no bearing on the topic at hand.

View Post

I know you didn't. I did. And i did so in order to show you bye example how not knowing how something came in to existence does not mean you can't make a accurate theory to describe how something will behave now that it does exist.


So you admit that saying something is true doesn't make it true... Then why attempt to do just that? If you already knew it defies logic, why try anyway?

View Post

Simple because it doesn't defies logic, and you haven't shown that it does.

Could have fooled me  wink.gif

View Post

i'm glad you realize your foolishness ;)

I haven't assumed anything. It is you who is assuming that science can be done when it isn't empirical and is subject to bias via interpretation.

Observation and experimentation can only be done first hand. That is the point. You cannot observe something happening after it occured nor can you test it. Hence your statement about science is not just first hand is false, according to what science actually is, (as I quoted for you)

View Post

So first your telling me your not making that assumption and then you continue to explain how your make that exact assumption. Funny

I never assumed science can't be done empirically. I'm simply informing you what empirical actually means. And yes there is bias and there is interpretation. You can make observation and those can be either correct or incorrect. But in science you also base a conclusion on those observations. And those conclusions can vary for any number of reason.
Or do you believe every one will always conclude the same thing?
This is part of the process.

As for first hand. If that where true there would be no science as almost all data comes to us indirectly through tools. Yes direct experimentation is is needed. But if you see the seem set up and result outside of your experiments in reality then it is logical that what happened did so according to your theory and like your experiment simulated. At least until something new comes along and shows you where your wrong

I mean this is the whole point of science, to simulate what has happened to find out how and then apply what you learned to reality.
And this is what the theory of evolution does.

#119 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:50 AM

Well then maybe you should read it again. Like i already said a answer like "i don't know" would do. ANd i already explained to you that that example was to show the difference between  abiogenesis and evolution. Not to prove either theistic or atheistic evolution.

Ron has already dealt with the "I don't know" stance. Its agnostic, not atheistic.
Some people here make the distinction thats why i used it. And i was just curious if you realized what you where saying.

So you create tests, in word games to try and trick people... Bad form.

look for a theory that does conform to reality. But like you said thats a if.

Easy!! Theory of Gravity. I drop an object it falls to the floor, observable in reality.

You do realise that "theories" ARE meant to be based on fact, therefore conform to reality, rather than your claim that there are none that do.


I know you didn't. I did. And i did so in order to show you bye example how not knowing how something came in to existence does not mean you can't make a accurate theory to describe how something will behave now that it does exist.

Yet planets are observable in reality, despite, (some of), us not knowing how they were created. Hence your logic fails as you are comparing apples to oranges. Planets are observable, evolution isn't.

Simple because it doesn't defies logic, and you haven't shown that it does.

So using your logic here. I can say "I have been to the moon", and it is fact, on the sole reason beause I said it. Do you not realise how stupid that sounds? In order to substantiate claims there must be evidence, failing to do so and you haven't spoken facts, just your opinion, nothing more.

So first your telling me your not making that assumption and then you continue to explain how your make that exact assumption. Funny

I never assumed science can't be done empirically.

Yes you did by saying it can be done without observations and experimentation... Observations and experimentation are requirements of empirical viability hence you are claiming science can be done unempirically.

I'm simply informing you what empirical actually means.

Really... Lets see what the dictonary has to say on your definition of empirical.

empirical - 6 dictionary results
em·pir·i·cal   /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/  Show Spelled
[em-pir-i-kuhl]  Show IPA

–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

http://dictionary.re...rowse/empirical

So here my claims on empirial are vindicated by word definition


And yes there is bias and there is interpretation. You can make observation and those can be either correct or incorrect. But in science you also base a conclusion on those observations.

Yet evolution is not observable, so how can you "base a conclusion on those observations", when evolution is not observed in reality.

At least until something new comes along and shows you where your wrong

and that is probably the biggest problem. Hence nothing in science is inherently "true" as they are liable to change when new data arrives. For example Darwinism had to convert to Neo-Darwinism, due to the complexity of cells and DNA. If things in science are always changing around then how can you hope to base ones belief system on such sandy (shifting), ground.

I mean this is the whole point of science, to simulate what has happened to find out how and then apply what you learned to reality.
And this is what the theory of evolution does.

It only simulates what people assume to have happened nothing more. Without EMPIRICAL validity, their claims are just their opinions, not fact.

View Post



#120 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2010 - 11:17 AM

the religious opinion of the evolutionist matters not. i quite like the theistic evolutionist perspective, although i am not one. they have a very valid opinion. tube is correct, if God spawned the first cell and let it evolve, thats a possibility. abiogenesis has nothing to do with that situation. so instead of calling us out saying we are "atheistic evolutionists" and have no right speaking of "theistic evolutionists", who cares? evolution is evolution, the origin of life is irrelevant.

we never claim that anything popped into thin air. in fact, it is creationists who make this claim, we adhere to the theory that intelligence gradually formed over millions of years. thats not popping into thin air in the least bit - thats the opposite. under evolutionary principles, intelligence is very likely to have evolved.

View Post



"Gradually forming over millions of years", IS the same as popping out of thin air. Just that your method takes longer.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users