Top | Newest First | Oldest First
False. I've always suspected the origin of life to be the chaos factor but it's a logical fallacy to say that since we don't know the origins of life, that "must" mean evolution has to be incorrect.
There could still be a scientific explanation that is close to evolution for the origins of life, we just haven't found it yet.
Rejecting something as false for what we don't know yet would be dismissing things that we [b][c=#7700B2]already[/c][/b] DO know about evolution, which a person can do but they'd be intellectually dishonest in doing so.
There could still be a scientific explanation that is close to evolution for the origins of life, we just haven't found it yet.
Rejecting something as false for what we don't know yet would be dismissing things that we [b][c=#7700B2]already[/c][/b] DO know about evolution, which a person can do but they'd be intellectually dishonest in doing so.
View 18 more replies »
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Y'all about to get preached at[/quote]
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
The Word of God.
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
The Word of God.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 The universe began expanding around 13.7 billion years ago, making possible both spacetime and the matter we now see... but that doesn't mean that was the beginning of whatever began to expand.
If it's in any way valid for you to say that was created, but whatever created it was never created, then it's equally valid to say that whatever began to expand was never created... in which case the supposed creator thing becomes surplus to requirements
If it's in any way valid for you to say that was created, but whatever created it was never created, then it's equally valid to say that whatever began to expand was never created... in which case the supposed creator thing becomes surplus to requirements
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63
I'm actually going to start deleting these if you don't smarten up.
Let me be clear, sport:
Calling people fools via scripture is no different and no more valuable than saying it in your own words.
Do you understand me?
This kind of behaviour will no longer be tolerated.
I'm actually going to start deleting these if you don't smarten up.
Let me be clear, sport:
Calling people fools via scripture is no different and no more valuable than saying it in your own words.
Do you understand me?
This kind of behaviour will no longer be tolerated.
OggggO · 36-40, M
For anyone quibbling about definitions:
[quote][b]Choose the Right Synonym for theory[/b]
HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. the theory of evolution LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions. the law of gravitation
[b]The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory[/b]
A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.
A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.
In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.
Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.
The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)
This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.
The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”
While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."
[b]Two Related, Yet Distinct, Meanings of Theory[/b]
There are many shades of meaning to the word theory. Most of these are used without difficulty, and we understand, based on the context in which they are found, what the intended meaning is. For instance, when we speak of music theory we understand it to be in reference to the underlying principles of the composition of music, and not in reference to some speculation about those principles.
However, there are two senses of theory which are sometimes troublesome. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory," implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.[/quote]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
[quote][b]Choose the Right Synonym for theory[/b]
HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. the theory of evolution LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions. the law of gravitation
[b]The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory[/b]
A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.
A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.
In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.
Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.
The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)
This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.
The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”
While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."
[b]Two Related, Yet Distinct, Meanings of Theory[/b]
There are many shades of meaning to the word theory. Most of these are used without difficulty, and we understand, based on the context in which they are found, what the intended meaning is. For instance, when we speak of music theory we understand it to be in reference to the underlying principles of the composition of music, and not in reference to some speculation about those principles.
However, there are two senses of theory which are sometimes troublesome. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory," implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.[/quote]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Faust76 [quote]That said, uhm, science should really get their act together and define those terms in a way that makes sense. [/quote] They honestly do, it’s hard to see exactly what all the confusion is.
[quote] don't even see a clear reason evolution can't be considered a law, other than perhaps being too large and complex concept. Certainly Mendel's Laws of Inheritance go long way towards explaining (if not necessitating the existence of) basics of evolution.[/quote]Because as soon as you go beyond basic descriptive relationships not the “why” of things you end up with a theory.
Heliocentrism and germ theory of disease aren’t laws either.
[quote] don't even see a clear reason evolution can't be considered a law, other than perhaps being too large and complex concept. Certainly Mendel's Laws of Inheritance go long way towards explaining (if not necessitating the existence of) basics of evolution.[/quote]Because as soon as you go beyond basic descriptive relationships not the “why” of things you end up with a theory.
Heliocentrism and germ theory of disease aren’t laws either.
SomeMichGuy · M
@Theseus I think the reaction to "educated GUESS" is that it completely mischaracterizes science and undercuts both scientists and their work/output.
An "educated GUESS" is what someone who is at least rather intelligent and hopefully also has some experience in an area must make [i]when he or she is caught without having had time to carefully study/review something.[/i]
Theories which survive to be published, tested, revised, cited, used...those are [b]far[/b] from "educated guesses". If you actually believe in reasoning, Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper starts with the observation that the same phenomenon, when viewed either by an observer at rest with respect to something, or moving along with it, has TWO different explanations in electromagnetism...but the same numerical result in each case. He then builds up terms, being very careful, and shows that what us derivable via other means (the Lorentz transform) is derivable from electromagnetism and an assumption about the speed of light.
Every time that they turn on, e.g., SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), the truth of special relativity's predictions is shown. And special relativity reduces to classical mechanics when the speed is very small...
It is *still* a theory, but def not merely an "educated guess"...
An "educated GUESS" is what someone who is at least rather intelligent and hopefully also has some experience in an area must make [i]when he or she is caught without having had time to carefully study/review something.[/i]
Theories which survive to be published, tested, revised, cited, used...those are [b]far[/b] from "educated guesses". If you actually believe in reasoning, Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper starts with the observation that the same phenomenon, when viewed either by an observer at rest with respect to something, or moving along with it, has TWO different explanations in electromagnetism...but the same numerical result in each case. He then builds up terms, being very careful, and shows that what us derivable via other means (the Lorentz transform) is derivable from electromagnetism and an assumption about the speed of light.
Every time that they turn on, e.g., SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), the truth of special relativity's predictions is shown. And special relativity reduces to classical mechanics when the speed is very small...
It is *still* a theory, but def not merely an "educated guess"...
CopperCicada · M
@newjaninev2 Yea.
All natural things are better. Inherently.
Ebola. Plutonium. Snake venom.
So exactly which chemicals aren't natural? Which elements not on the periodic table do they contain.
THAT is a peeve I have as a physicist by training. All the supposed elements not discovered yet. Dawg-- you can't randomly put protons and neutrons together!
All natural things are better. Inherently.
Ebola. Plutonium. Snake venom.
So exactly which chemicals aren't natural? Which elements not on the periodic table do they contain.
THAT is a peeve I have as a physicist by training. All the supposed elements not discovered yet. Dawg-- you can't randomly put protons and neutrons together!
SomeMichGuy · M
@CopperCicada
[quote]
All natural things are better. Inherently.
Ebola. Plutonium. Snake venom.
[/quote]
LMAO YES! I use similar, incl. Pb, Hg; Ra, Rn, U; As; F, Cl, pneumonia, cancer, ...
Good to see another physicist.
[quote]
All natural things are better. Inherently.
Ebola. Plutonium. Snake venom.
[/quote]
LMAO YES! I use similar, incl. Pb, Hg; Ra, Rn, U; As; F, Cl, pneumonia, cancer, ...
Good to see another physicist.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
If no one was around when a tree fell and this tree fell in a remote area of a forest that had never been witnessed, where no one had ever seen the tree standing up...
Despite the fact that there is no concrete evidence that the tree was standing to begin with, do we then conclude that the tree must have just materialized that way by some divine act?
Living organisms are composed of matter that exists in the known universe. It is possible to break down the component of a living being into it's molecular components.
We have evidence that life exists. Even those who believe in a deity are willing to admit that life, at some point in the past, did not exist.
We have sent probes billions of miles into the universe and we have not yet confirmed that life exists elsewhere... so then life... as we know it.. is rare.
So, it's a reasonable conclusion that abiogenesis is statistically next to impossible, which would therefore make it very difficult to prove or replicate.
Scientists do not consider this to be a terribly difficult stance to accept. There isn't agreement yet on how it happened, because of the challenges noted above.
But as with the tree, there's no valid reason to presume divine intervention.
Despite the fact that there is no concrete evidence that the tree was standing to begin with, do we then conclude that the tree must have just materialized that way by some divine act?
Living organisms are composed of matter that exists in the known universe. It is possible to break down the component of a living being into it's molecular components.
We have evidence that life exists. Even those who believe in a deity are willing to admit that life, at some point in the past, did not exist.
We have sent probes billions of miles into the universe and we have not yet confirmed that life exists elsewhere... so then life... as we know it.. is rare.
So, it's a reasonable conclusion that abiogenesis is statistically next to impossible, which would therefore make it very difficult to prove or replicate.
Scientists do not consider this to be a terribly difficult stance to accept. There isn't agreement yet on how it happened, because of the challenges noted above.
But as with the tree, there's no valid reason to presume divine intervention.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@canusernamebemyusername @OggggO The nudge thing is what I find to be flawed.
Statistically speaking, it is near impossible to win some of the modern lotteries. The odds of winning are so infinitesimally small, that there is little point in playing. And yet, eventually, someone wins. Why? Because, it's not literally impossible, it's just extremely unlikely.
Life on earth, at some point in the distant past, hit the universe's version of the lottery. While it's likely that conditions for the birth of life may have existed, or do exist, or will exist somewhere else in the universe, that statistical happenstance that resulted in the formation of micro-organisms happened here. Might it have happened elsewhere? Sure, but like the lottery, it's unlikely.
Evolution is merely the natural result of entropy. Everything is breaking down. Those things that survive are those things that change in the right way to survive other changes.
There is no plan. There is no logic. It's just happenstance.
SOMETHING will survive. We just don't know what will survive until it does. (Just one reason that the literal future cannot be predicted)
"God" is a way to provide meaning to a universe that has no meaning.
Statistically speaking, it is near impossible to win some of the modern lotteries. The odds of winning are so infinitesimally small, that there is little point in playing. And yet, eventually, someone wins. Why? Because, it's not literally impossible, it's just extremely unlikely.
Life on earth, at some point in the distant past, hit the universe's version of the lottery. While it's likely that conditions for the birth of life may have existed, or do exist, or will exist somewhere else in the universe, that statistical happenstance that resulted in the formation of micro-organisms happened here. Might it have happened elsewhere? Sure, but like the lottery, it's unlikely.
Evolution is merely the natural result of entropy. Everything is breaking down. Those things that survive are those things that change in the right way to survive other changes.
There is no plan. There is no logic. It's just happenstance.
SOMETHING will survive. We just don't know what will survive until it does. (Just one reason that the literal future cannot be predicted)
"God" is a way to provide meaning to a universe that has no meaning.
OggggO · 36-40, M
@JoeyFoxx And that is the simplest and most logical explanation for it all. I however, have had personal (and non-replicable) experiences that don't fit such a scenario, at least to my mind. I do not expect them to convince anyone else, in fact they [i]should not[/i] convince anyone else, as they rise nowhere near the standards of evidence, but they have left an impression on me. I'm not going to say I can't be wrong, nor would I ignore any explicitly contradictory evidence, but barring such, I have my beliefs, even though they are unfalsifiable.
Theliberal · 36-40, M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Theliberal [quote]Im done if nobody responds[/quote]
I'm [i]still[/i] waiting for you to respond to my original question.
I'll repeat it here for you: what are 'monkey men'?
I'm [i]still[/i] waiting for you to respond to my original question.
I'll repeat it here for you: what are 'monkey men'?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Theliberal Or can we just take it as read that Option Three is correct?
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Theliberal We didn't evolve directly from monkeys, we have a common ancestor that we share similar traits with because half of our genetic profile, roughly 98.8 percent matches up. Even our immune systems are almost identical:
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
I suggest starting at 1:25 and then later on when they talk about sequencing DNA results of various species. You also learn about how we classify animals into different groups by both physical and internal traits through this video as well:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef0sTV_6SKw]
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
I suggest starting at 1:25 and then later on when they talk about sequencing DNA results of various species. You also learn about how we classify animals into different groups by both physical and internal traits through this video as well:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef0sTV_6SKw]
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Budwick [quote]evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began[/quote]
That is correct.
Evolution explains what happens once life has begun.
The origin of that life is called abiogenesis, and is a separate topic.
All that is necessary for evolution is that life exists. The subject matter of evolution is simply and solely around what [i]then[/i] happens, and how.
We already know that abiogenesis has occurred on this planet (unless you think that there's no life this planet). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is currently the most complete, comprehensive, and coherent explanation for the evidence of what has occurred subsequent to abiogenesis.
That is correct.
Evolution explains what happens once life has begun.
The origin of that life is called abiogenesis, and is a separate topic.
All that is necessary for evolution is that life exists. The subject matter of evolution is simply and solely around what [i]then[/i] happens, and how.
We already know that abiogenesis has occurred on this planet (unless you think that there's no life this planet). The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is currently the most complete, comprehensive, and coherent explanation for the evidence of what has occurred subsequent to abiogenesis.
SomeMichGuy · M
@OggggO @Budwick
[quote]I'm still a Christian. Christianity and evolution are not incompatible.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Incompatibility stems from forcing an interpretation which goes beyond the text, and from a fear of science in general.
If you accept that God pronounced the Creation as "very good" and that we are created in His image...then why fear the fruit of our minds, esp. when tested over years?
[quote]I'm still a Christian. Christianity and evolution are not incompatible.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Incompatibility stems from forcing an interpretation which goes beyond the text, and from a fear of science in general.
If you accept that God pronounced the Creation as "very good" and that we are created in His image...then why fear the fruit of our minds, esp. when tested over years?
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
@Carazaa @QuixoticSoul @Pikachu
Perhaps the 3 of your can read this and then have a more meaningful debate
https://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/
It seems to be unbiased, showing the history of the conflict and confluence of faith and reason.
Perhaps the 3 of your can read this and then have a more meaningful debate
https://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/
It seems to be unbiased, showing the history of the conflict and confluence of faith and reason.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@JoeyFoxx That’s a good summary of the philosophical systems we’ve built up to deal with the concept of faith (as always, Kierkegaard is my favorite here, because he accepts and owns the fundamental irrationality of religious belief).
But it’s not all that relevant to this particular topic, because the topic has little to do with religious faith. Denying evolution isn’t really about faith, god, reason, etc. It’s about denial of evidence - piles and piles of interdisciplinary evidence, akin to stubbornly maintaining that the earth is flat.
To take Gould’s definition of a scientific fact - it’s data that’s been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". That is what we are dealing with.
But it’s not all that relevant to this particular topic, because the topic has little to do with religious faith. Denying evolution isn’t really about faith, god, reason, etc. It’s about denial of evidence - piles and piles of interdisciplinary evidence, akin to stubbornly maintaining that the earth is flat.
To take Gould’s definition of a scientific fact - it’s data that’s been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". That is what we are dealing with.
