I don't believe in evolution

[aquatus1]

As another poster stated, semantics clouds the issue.

Doesn't that depend upon how you define "belief"? You accept the facts of evolution as being true; isn't that the same thing as "believing"?

Well, there's semantics, and there's plain old definition of words. There is, after all, a reason why we have different words and why we use them in different situations.

In this case, no, accepting the facts of evolution is not the same as believing. If this were the case, you would have to say that the sun rising in the east is a matter of belief. When you are talking about facts, in regards to a process, it is not a matter of belief, but of predictive quality. I do not have to believe that an apple will fall from a tree to the ground; I can predict it based on what we know of the facts of gravity. We understand the process to the extent that we can make predictions and see them validated. The same holds true for celestial mechanics, and for evolution. The facts of both allow us to make predictions, and we can validate those predictions through observation.

And here's a thought to make the fur fly:

No one was around to observe the long-term transition of one type of animal to another (i.e., reptiles becoming birds) or to observe the fossilization process. All that is observable is the end result, so conclusions are being made without the benefit of true observation. In other words, without the benefit of observation, one must have faith that their conclusions are true.

That is incorrect. You are starting with the wrong premise. You are under the assumption that long-term transition of one animal to the other is the fact of evolution, and must be proven in order to be validated. This is not the case. The fact of evolution is the mutation of the genome through generations. This can be observed, is observed on a daily basis, and entire industries are based around this process occurring. The fact of evolution is established, validated, and there is absolutely no room for deviation that anyone has been able to uncover as of yet.

There has been as of yet no process which has been seen to stop the mutation of the genome, and we cannot state that it will stop by itself without any evidence. We must, therefore, logically conclude that mutations will continue. We can predict that genetic mutations will accumulate to the point that phenotypical traits will cause the species to eventually change to a form significantly different than the one we began with; It is the inevitable result of a build-up of mutations. This theory is generally referred to as Neo-Darwinism, although it is less a theory and more a general observation of logical outcome; It is similar to referring to the falling apple as Neo-Newtonism. This theory allows us to make predictions; we should see a gradual increase in complexity in species from the origins of life to the future. We should not see a complex species appearing in an era where there is no indication complexity has reached that level.

As has been pointed out, we do not have the ability to travel to the future, however we do have records of the past. The fossil record, including dinosaurs, trees, bacteria, gasses, isotopes, and chemicals, all come to a joint agreement. Anything that is created through DNA shows a clear and distinct trend from simple to complex through the passage of time. The prediction that we made has been validated. It does not even matter that we are looking at different species, to be frank. Our prediction, after all, did not require a single unbroken genetic lineage from any one species. No, the fact of evolution applies universally to all creatures with DNA, and all creatures are expected to be subject to it. Because of this, the simple fact that we can see increasing complexity in the fossil records supports our theory regarding the diversity of creatures on the planet.

But before we begin throwing out the same old Creationist arguments yet again, let me make something absolutely clear:

In the above, we are not talking about species, but about diversity.

That is correct. Everything above has nothing to do with one species turning into another. The above is nothing more than physical changes. That is it.

Why is this so significant? Simply because of this: The evolution of one species to another does not require deduction. We can observe it directly. We can intentionally create it. Heck, in some places, it is an Honors high school science project. In other words, speciation is not based on faith; we see it. We control it.

So, where is the confusion? It is here: Those who do not understand the details of evolutionary science confuse what something looks like on the outside with what something is on the genetic level. The outside of a creature is a rather small part of evolution. In terms of evolutionary theory, it is almost negligible. To claim that evolution is not valid simply because we do not see the outside of a creature changing significantly is an unintentional straw man; the definition of evolution has nothing to do with the outside of a creature. The outside is nothing more than a consequence of the process, like the sun rising in the East, or the apple hitting the ground. Real evolution, evolution of the kind that scientists work with, is in the genetics. And in the genetics, we can see one species becoming another. We do it all the time. To the person looking for proof on the outside, they will see nothing, because that is not where evolution happens.

Simply put, to understand evolution, the first step is to...well, to understand that you do not understand evolution. If you think what is on the outside is of any major significance to evolution, you do not understand evolution. And if you start counting up all the time that you spent arguing about the outside, and then you realize how much time you have been spending arguing about something that is really insignificant...really, if you had to do it over again, wouldn't it just make more sense to spend that time arguing about what evolution really is?

[FurthurBB]

As another poster stated, semantics clouds the issue.

Doesn't that depend upon how you define "belief"? You accept the facts of evolution as being true; isn't that the same thing as "believing"?

And here's a thought to make the fur fly:

No one was around to observe the long-term transition of one type of animal to another (i.e., reptiles becoming birds) or to observe the fossilization process. All that is observable is the end result, so conclusions are being made without the benefit of true observation. In other words, without the benefit of observation, one must have faith that their conclusions are true.

That is actually not true, and I believe it has already been explained how you can still do experimentation on evolutionary theory.

[FurthurBB]

Well, there's semantics, and there's plain old definition of words. There is, after all, a reason why we have different words and why we use them in different situations.

In this case, no, accepting the facts of evolution is not the same as believing. If this were the case, you would have to say that the sun rising in the east is a matter of belief. When you are talking about facts, in regards to a process, it is not a matter of belief, but of predictive quality. I do not have to believe that an apple will fall from a tree to the ground; I can predict it based on what we know of the facts of gravity. We understand the process to the extent that we can make predictions and see them validated. The same holds true for celestial mechanics, and for evolution. The facts of both allow us to make predictions, and we can validate those predictions through observation.

That is incorrect. You are starting with the wrong premise. You are under the assumption that long-term transition of one animal to the other is the fact of evolution, and must be proven in order to be validated. This is not the case. The fact of evolution is the mutation of the genome through generations. This can be observed, is observed on a daily basis, and entire industries are based around this process occurring. The fact of evolution is established, validated, and there is absolutely no room for deviation that anyone has been able to uncover as of yet.

There has been as of yet no process which has been seen to stop the mutation of the genome, and we cannot state that it will stop by itself without any evidence. We must, therefore, logically conclude that mutations will continue. We can predict that genetic mutations will accumulate to the point that phenotypical traits will cause the species to eventually change to a form significantly different than the one we began with; It is the inevitable result of a build-up of mutations. This theory is generally referred to as Neo-Darwinism, although it is less a theory and more a general observation of logical outcome; It is similar to referring to the falling apple as Neo-Newtonism. This theory allows us to make predictions; we should see a gradual increase in complexity in species from the origins of life to the future. We should not see a complex species appearing in an era where there is no indication complexity has reached that level.

As has been pointed out, we do not have the ability to travel to the future, however we do have records of the past. The fossil record, including dinosaurs, trees, bacteria, gasses, isotopes, and chemicals, all come to a joint agreement. Anything that is created through DNA shows a clear and distinct trend from simple to complex through the passage of time. The prediction that we made has been validated. It does not even matter that we are looking at different species, to be frank. Our prediction, after all, did not require a single unbroken genetic lineage from any one species. No, the fact of evolution applies universally to all creatures with DNA, and all creatures are expected to be subject to it. Because of this, the simple fact that we can see increasing complexity in the fossil records supports our theory regarding the diversity of creatures on the planet.

But before we begin throwing out the same old Creationist arguments yet again, let me make something absolutely clear:

In the above, we are not talking about species, but about diversity.

That is correct. Everything above has nothing to do with one species turning into another. The above is nothing more than physical changes. That is it.

Why is this so significant? Simply because of this: The evolution of one species to another does not require deduction. We can observe it directly. We can intentionally create it. Heck, in some places, it is an Honors high school science project. In other words, speciation is not based on faith; we see it. We control it.

So, where is the confusion? It is here: Those who do not understand the details of evolutionary science confuse what something looks like on the outside with what something is on the genetic level. The outside of a creature is a rather small part of evolution. In terms of evolutionary theory, it is almost negligible. To claim that evolution is not valid simply because we do not see the outside of a creature changing significantly is an unintentional straw man; the definition of evolution has nothing to do with the outside of a creature. The outside is nothing more than a consequence of the process, like the sun rising in the East, or the apple hitting the ground. Real evolution, evolution of the kind that scientists work with, is in the genetics. And in the genetics, we can see one species becoming another. We do it all the time. To the person looking for proof on the outside, they will see nothing, because that is not where evolution happens.

Simply put, to understand evolution, the first step is to...well, to understand that you do not understand evolution. If you think what is on the outside is of any major significance to evolution, you do not understand evolution. And if you start counting up all the time that you spent arguing about the outside, and then you realize how much time you have been spending arguing about something that is really insignificant...really, if you had to do it over again, wouldn't it just make more sense to spend that time arguing about what evolution really is?

Not to mention the simple middle school fruit fly speciation experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg I actually just helped my daughter's class with this last year.

Edited January 18, 2012 by FurthurBB

[aquatus1]

Yeah, it's not even an Honors Middle school thing anymore. It's just a neat science project at this point.

Man, I feel old.

[MedicTJ]

Oh I've gotten beaten down on this debate several times in the past, but can't resist adding in my couple of cents again.

The one thing no evolutionist can provide is how life even started the evolutionary process in the first place.

They can't create life from "non-life" in the lab.

And then they'll turn around and scream that believers in God or any sort of intelligent design is belief in "magic"......but at the same time tell you that life just appeared from non-life spontaneously....and that's not magic?

And before you start, Copasetic, give me ONE EXAMPLE. JUST ONE......of you or anyone else creating life from non-life.

(and even if you can....which you can't....it would strengthen my argument even further.....because "intelligence" would have created it)

And I DO NOT want to hear about speculation. We both agree with evolution. I want you to give me a specific example (or examples) of how it started. Give me proof.

If you cannot, then asking me to believe that life just sprang up out of nowhere is NO DIFFERENT than the views of any of us who believe in God or intelligent design.

[Beckys_Mom]

Oh I've gotten beaten down on this debate several times in the past, but can't resist adding in my couple of cents again.

Glutton for punishment lol Going after that prestigious Darwin award? Good man, keep up that fighting spirit

Just messing lol

[Copasetic]

Oh I've gotten beaten down on this debate several times in the past, but can't resist adding in my couple of cents again.

The one thing no evolutionist can provide is how life even started the evolutionary process in the first place.

They can't create life from "non-life" in the lab.

And then they'll turn around and scream that believers in God or any sort of intelligent design is belief in "magic"......but at the same time tell you that life just appeared from non-life spontaneously....and that's not magic?

And before you start, Copasetic, give me ONE EXAMPLE. JUST ONE......of you or anyone else creating life from non-life.

(and even if you can....which you can't....it would strengthen my argument even further.....because "intelligence" would have created it)

And I DO NOT want to hear about speculation. We both agree with evolution. I want you to give me a specific example (or examples) of how it started. Give me proof.

If you cannot, then asking me to believe that life just sprang up out of nowhere is NO DIFFERENT than the views of any of us who believe in God or intelligent design.

How life arose has nothing to do with the TMS. Nothing. Do you understand that?

Why do you think scientists believe that life "sprang out of nowhere"?

Edit: Can you acknowledge that you understand that a scientific theory can only explain a specific scientific phenomena? Than we can talk about the origin of life if you wish.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

Yeah, it's not even an Honors Middle school thing anymore. It's just a neat science project at this point.

Man, I feel old.

Old! I've mentored AP bio students doing transformations on bacteria for their science projects! What a Faynmen-esq world of molecular biology we are living in!

[MedicTJ]

How life arose has nothing to do with the TMS. Nothing. Do you understand that?

Why do you think scientists believe that life "sprang out of nowhere"?

Edit: Can you acknowledge that you understand that a scientific theory can only explain a specific scientific phenomena? Than we can talk about the origin of life if you wish.

You're getting defensive because neither you, nor any other evolutionist, can answer the question.

You believe in evolution, but just throw out the parts you can't explain. That is why skeptics hinder development. If something can't be explained, it simply doesn't exist. You pick and choose what you want to discuss....as long as it fits your view.

I want you to tell me how life started. It's that simple.

Unless you can do that, or at least give me a reasonable answer as to how the very first organism arose from non-life, then where are we at?

At least I've given a completely plausible explanation. You, on the other hand, refuse to even offer THAT much.

[Copasetic]

You're getting defensive because neither you, nor any other evolutionist, can answer the question.

You believe in evolution, but just throw out the parts you can't explain. That is why skeptics hinder development. If something can't be explained, it simply doesn't exist. You pick and choose what you want to discuss....as long as it fits your view.

I'm not getting defensive, I want you to acknowledge how science works. If you can't do that, then what is the point of having a discussion with you about science? I'd be happy to discuss the origin of life with you, but like Aquatus wanted of Lion, I would like a show of good faith on your part--Otherwise this is a waste of my time.

So again, in science we use a scientific theory to explain a specific natural phenomena. For instance we use cell theory to explain cells and their behavior--We don't use it to explain evolutionary change. We use plate tectonics to explain the movement and interaction of landmasses across the face of earth--Not how to explain atoms. This isn't trivial, it is a vitally important point to understand about science. Theories are specific. To be accurate and useful in the real world, they must be because they are mechanistic propositions which explain phenomena that have different underlying workings.

Expecting the modern synthesis (evolutionary theory) to explain the origin of life is as dumb as expecting plate tectonics to explain the origin of planets. Or kinetic molecular theory to explain the origin of atoms. Or atomic molecular orbital theory to explain the origin of electrons. You see? Its a silly expectation founded upon misunderstandings of what science and scientific theory entails. Once you can overcome and unlearn your bad ideas, we can actually have a meaningful discussion.

So please simply acknowledge that you understand that and I'd be happy to discuss what we do and do not know of the origin of life.

I want you to tell me how life started. It's that simple.

Unless you can do that, or at least give me a reasonable answer as to how the very first organism arose from non-life, then where are we at?

At least I've given a completely plausible explanation. You, on the other hand, refuse to even offer THAT much.

Again, I am more than happy to discuss the current state of knowledge on the origin of life (a field I try to keep up with) and the chemical syntheses which produces self-replicators, but delving into that conversation when you lack fundamental misunderstandings is a wasted endeavor. Please acknowledge the above and I'll be glad to discuss the origin of life with you.

[J. K.]

The fact of evolution is the mutation of the genome through generations.

If you think what is on the outside is of any major significance to evolution, you do not understand evolution.

If the first statement is the sole, specific definition of evolution, then I have no difficulty accepting it.

The second statement leads me to several different thoughts:

If the outside - and I assume you mean appearance and/or structure - is of no consequence to the study of evolution, then why are bones and bone fragments used to demonstrate transitions?

If only the genetic structure is valid for evolutionary research, how can you make determinations about species for which there exists no DNA? I was under the assumption the DNA breaks down rather quickly and is not obtainable from fossils.

What is the scientific terminology for the process by which ancestor organisms give rise to descendant organisms?

[MedicTJ]

I'm not getting defensive, I want you to acknowledge how science works. If you can't do that, then what is the point of having a discussion with you about science? I'd be happy to discuss the origin of life with you, but like Aquatus wanted of Lion, I would like a show of good faith on your part--Otherwise this is a waste of my time.

So again, in science we use a scientific theory to explain a specific natural phenomena. For instance we use cell theory to explain cells and their behavior--We don't use it to explain evolutionary change. We use plate tectonics to explain the movement and interaction of landmasses across the face of earth--Not how to explain atoms. This isn't trivial, it is a vitally important point to understand about science. Theories are specific. To be accurate and useful in the real world, they must be because they are mechanistic propositions which explain phenomena that have different underlying workings.

Expecting the modern synthesis (evolutionary theory) to explain the origin of life is as dumb as expecting plate tectonics to explain the origin of planets. Or kinetic molecular theory to explain the origin of atoms. Or atomic molecular orbital theory to explain the origin of electrons. You see? Its a silly expectation founded upon misunderstandings of what science and scientific theory entails. Once you can overcome and unlearn your bad ideas, we can actually have a meaningful discussion.

So please simply acknowledge that you understand that and I'd be happy to discuss what we do and do not know of the origin of life.

Again, I am more than happy to discuss the current state of knowledge on the origin of life (a field I try to keep up with) and the chemical syntheses which produces self-replicators, but delving into that conversation when you lack fundamental misunderstandings is a wasted endeavor. Please acknowledge the above and I'll be glad to discuss the origin of life with you.

How can you discuss evolution and not discuss how it started? That makes no sense. That's like talking about building a house from the 2nd floor on up.

And you can talk about self-replicators all you want....and use your usual insults and your high-and-mighty-know-it-all-thumb-down-nose attitude all you want. I really don't care.

If you want to talk evolution, don't just discuss one aspect of it and throw out THE MOST IMPORTANT part.

Now, if you're saying you'd like me to start a thread on the origin of life, I'll be happy to do so.

[Beckys_Mom]

And before you start, Copasetic, give me ONE EXAMPLE. JUST ONE......of you or anyone else creating life from non-life.

1st of all we have - Sub-atomic particles that can appear from NOWHERE.. this has in fact been proven in experiments

Particles then gather into - ATOMS.......

ATOMS gather in to - SINGLE CELLS

CELLS gather into - BACTERIA........and so on... life evolves..

I think you should also read this below...( if you so wish and you really are interested)

Stephen Hawking is squaring off with God, saying that God did not have a hand in creating the universe and that the "laws of science" can explain how the universe created itself from nothing.

In the premiere episode of The Discovery Channel's latest series "Curiosity," set for Sunday at 8 p.m. ET, Hawking takes on the question: "Is There a Creator?"

Hawking, who has done extensive research on several contentious topics such as time travel, parallel universes and black holes, says that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. He proposes that it is possible that the universe created itself out of nothing.

"Because these is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes in his recently published book, The Grand Design.

During the episode, Hawking talks about experiments in which sub-atomic particles have been observed to appear from nowhere. He feels this is proof that the universe is self-creating, as the Big Bang started out as a particle smaller than an atom.

Hawking says it is likely the universe "popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature."

He uses his book to detail how discoveries by people have fleshed out the origin and structure of the universe, from Vikings observing eclipses to cosmology, the field dedicated to the study of the universe.......( BM here wrote something about this in another thread)

"I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind's greatest achievement," he said.

Once upon a time, Hawking didn't rule out God's involvement in the creation of the universe, stating in his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, that if a complete theory was ever discovered, "we would know the mind of God."

Now, through his new book and corresponding "Is There a Creator?" episode, he attempts to dispel the theory posed by Sir Isaac Newton that the creation of the universe was set in motion by God.

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science. I believe the second," Hawking writes in The Grand Design.

"If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it would be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

.. http://www.freerepub...t/2758745/posts

If you read - The grand Design or watched his documentary - Is there a Creator?.. then you would hold more of an understanding.. and not set yourself up as you put it - To get beaten down ..

It is very easy to keep coming back looking for proof. and each time someone tries to help you understand it all actl like it means nothing... But in all seriousness, this is a topic...a subject that should be taken seriously and observed as such.. .Not used as some weak little battle ground for non stop - banter ...

Evolution and threads based on Evolution.. even the ones that describe WHY people do not understand it and so on...are very educational... They do not need any rantings or people who only care to yell out things like I SEE NO PROOF...GIMME PROOF? meanwhile ignoring all they are given to read....What they need is people showing an actual interest...

Now, I am not putting you or anyone down.. I am just pointing out that instead of forever returning yelling - I want proof? ... why not take the time to listen? read? and show what exactly you do understand?

You do not always needs answers from one person.. there are others here who can easily help out... I found it easier to watch videos and read up on what I can to gain my OWN understanding....

Edited January 18, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[MedicTJ]

1st of all we have - Sub-atomic particles that can appear from NOWHERE.. this has in fact been proven in experiments

Particles then gather into - ATOMS.......

ATOMS gather in to - SINGLE CELLS

CELLS gather into - BACTERIA........and so on... life evolves..

I think you should also read this below...( if you so wish and you really are interested)

Stephen Hawking is squaring off with God, saying that God did not have a hand in creating the universe and that the "laws of science" can explain how the universe created itself from nothing.

In the premiere episode of The Discovery Channel's latest series "Curiosity," set for Sunday at 8 p.m. ET, Hawking takes on the question: "Is There a Creator?"

Hawking, who has done extensive research on several contentious topics such as time travel, parallel universes and black holes, says that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. He proposes that it is possible that the universe created itself out of nothing.

"Because these is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes in his recently published book, The Grand Design.

During the episode, Hawking talks about experiments in which sub-atomic particles have been observed to appear from nowhere. He feels this is proof that the universe is self-creating, as the Big Bang started out as a particle smaller than an atom.

Hawking says it is likely the universe "popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature."

He uses his book to detail how discoveries by people have fleshed out the origin and structure of the universe, from Vikings observing eclipses to cosmology, the field dedicated to the study of the universe.

"I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind's greatest achievement," he said.

Once upon a time, Hawking didn't rule out God's involvement in the creation of the universe, stating in his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, that if a complete theory was ever discovered, "we would know the mind of God."

Now, through his new book and corresponding "Is There a Creator?" episode, he attempts to dispel the theory posed by Sir Isaac Newton that the creation of the universe was set in motion by God.

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science. I believe the second," Hawking writes in The Grand Design.

"If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it would be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

.. http://www.freerepub...t/2758745/posts

If you read - The grand Design or watched his documentary - Is there a Creator?.. then you would hold more of an understanding.. and not set yourself up as you put it - To get beaten down ..

It is very easy to keep coming back looking for proof. and each time someone tries to help you understand it all actl like it means nothing... But in all seriousness, this is a topic...a subject that should be taken seriously and observed as such.. .Not used as some weak little battle ground for non stop - banter ...

Evolution and threads based on Evolution.. even the ones that describe WHY people do not understand it and so on...are very educational... They do not need any rantings or people who only care to yell out things like I SEE NO PROOF...GIMME PROOF? meanwhile ignoring all they are given to read....What they need is people showing an actual interest...

Now, I am not putting you or anyone down.. I am just pointing out that instead of forever returning yelling - I want proof? ... why not take the time to listen? read? and show what exactly you do understand?

You do not always needs answers from one person.. there are others here who can easily help out... I found it easier to watch videos and read up on what I can to gain my OWN understanding....

Becky's Mom....there is not, nor has there ever been witnessed.....atoms gathering into single cells. There has never been witnessed....an example of life arising from non-life. But that is EXACTLY what evolutionists claim to have happened!

And again, to believe in that aspect is not magic? But a belief that another intelligence started the ball rolling is?

I have provided a plausible explanation for how evolution got started. Remember, I AGREE WITH EVOLUTION! It's impossible not to. But asking me to believe that a bunch of atoms just got together and formed a single cell is preposterous. That's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Also, I'm not just talking about the very first single-celled organism. I'm talking about the history of this planet. All along the evolutionary ladder, can you point to even one example of life arising out of non-life? Not just from the beginning....but why not throughout history? Why hasn't it happened again, and again, and again?

On top of that, do you realize how much is in just one single cell? Do you realize the information that is in just one single cell? You make it sound like a bunch of atoms just bumped into each other the right way....and voila! We have life! That's impossible.

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/cell-parts

Take a look at that. And then tell me how likely it is that atoms spontaneously got together to create the first one.

[Beckys_Mom]

Becky's Mom....there is not, nor has there ever been witnessed.....atoms gathering into single cells. There has never been witnessed....an example of life arising from non-life. But that is EXACTLY what evolutionists claim to have happened!

And again, to believe in that aspect is not magic? But a belief that another intelligence started the ball rolling is?

I have provided a plausible explanation for how evolution got started. Remember, I AGREE WITH EVOLUTION! It's impossible not to. But asking me to believe that a bunch of atoms just got together and formed a single cell is preposterous. That's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I finished my post in here at 6.40PM my time.....

I noted at exactly 6.42PM ( 2mins later you had posted a reply to someone else in another thread )

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=221013

One min later at exactly 6.43PM... you were already composing up this reply that took you several mins to finish ...This only shows you hold no interest in this thread and no interest in finding any real answers

You show me you have no interest.. I posted up information that would take you some time to at least check out.. you read nothing..... You show that your only interest is to come back int constantly to say how you cannot believe. .and how you want proof..

Come back when you have actually read and understood anything from what I posted ....It speaks about were life came from NOWHERE .where to find the info on it ect...

It looks foolish to not read anything on it and still act like you can disprove it....It would be like - criticize a book from JK Rowling and not knowing who the heck Harry Potter is

Edited January 18, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Beckys_Mom]

On top of that, do you realize how much is in just one single cell? Do you realize the information that is in just one single cell? You make it sound like a bunch of atoms just bumped into each other the right way....and voila! We have life! That's impossible.

I just summarized it for you.. that was all... I know there is lot more to it..

I posted them in order at the beginning of my post................

[Copasetic]

How can you discuss evolution and not discuss how it started?

Because, for the 10th time, scientific theories explain specific natural phenomena. The scientific theories which explain evolutionary change (the biological fact of evolution) cannot, nor ever will try and explain the origin of life. Please acknowledge that you understand that, I'm not sure why it is hard for you to acknowledge this.

Am I explaining it poorly to you? Do you not understand the idea of specificity and scientific theories? Or do you feel that conceding that somehow faults you? Rest assured dude, this isn't a "gotchya" game. I simply want you to understand that specific theories in science can ONLY EXPLAIN SPECIFIC PHENOMENA!

And you can talk about self-replicators all you want....and use your usual insults and your high-and-mighty-know-it-all-thumb-down-nose attitude all you want. I really don't care.

Okay....I'd love to talk about self-replicators with you, but we need to clear up the fundamentals first. We can't have a discussion on science when you misunderstand the nature of science and terms used in science itself. I'm sorry if you consider that "know it all", however there are millions of people who do understand this as part of their basic science education. To discuss the origin of life, you need to divorce the idea that it is somehow an expectation of evolution to explain it.

If you want to talk evolution, don't just discuss one aspect of it and throw out THE MOST IMPORTANT part.

Words TJ, words they have meanings man! Biological evolution: The fact that allele frequencies change across generations. Specific, see? Can you acknowledge you understand that? No part of that fact (nor the theory which explains it) deals with the origin of life. Can you acknowledge you understand that?

Now, if you're saying you'd like me to start a thread on the origin of life, I'll be happy to do so.

What is the point? How can we discuss something massively more complex, involving much more complex biology and chemistry when you can't get past basic understandings of science? Its a wasted endeavor.

The offer will stand for you TJ, if you want to discuss the origin of life I am more than happy too. More than happy. I would like a show of good faith on your part that you are willing to have a meaningful discussion though--You can show me that by acknowledging the above. That you understand specificity in scientific theory. If you can do that, then lets move on with the discussion--If you cannot do that, I have better uses of my time.

[MedicTJ]

Because, for the 10th time, scientific theories explain specific natural phenomena. The scientific theories which explain evolutionary change (the biological fact of evolution) cannot, nor ever will try and explain the origin of life. Please acknowledge that you understand that, I'm not sure why it is hard for you to acknowledge this.

Am I explaining it poorly to you? Do you not understand the idea of specificity and scientific theories? Or do you feel that conceding that somehow faults you? Rest assured dude, this isn't a "gotchya" game. I simply want you to understand that specific theories in science can ONLY EXPLAIN SPECIFIC PHENOMENA!

Okay....I'd love to talk about self-replicators with you, but we need to clear up the fundamentals first. We can't have a discussion on science when you misunderstand the nature of science and terms used in science itself. I'm sorry if you consider that "know it all", however there are millions of people who do understand this as part of their basic science education. To discuss the origin of life, you need to divorce the idea that it is somehow an expectation of evolution to explain it.

Words TJ, words they have meanings man! Biological evolution: The fact that allele frequencies change across generations. Specific, see? Can you acknowledge you understand that? No part of that fact (nor the theory which explains it) deals with the origin of life. Can you acknowledge you understand that?

What is the point? How can we discuss something massively more complex, involving much more complex biology and chemistry when you can't get past basic understandings of science? Its a wasted endeavor.

The offer will stand for you TJ, if you want to discuss the origin of life I am more than happy too. More than happy. I would like a show of good faith on your part that you are willing to have a meaningful discussion though--You can show me that by acknowledging the above. That you understand specificity in scientific theory. If you can do that, then lets move on with the discussion--If you cannot do that, I have better uses of my time.

*sigh*

Yep. Your intelligence is just too far superior to my own.

[Copasetic]

*sigh*

Yep. Your intelligence is just too far superior to my own.

I'm going to have to agree with BM, you really aren't even reading posts at this point. At no point did I insinuate that my intelligence is far to superior for you. At no point did I claim your intelligence wasn't up to the task of the discussion. I simply asked that you acknowledge something fundamental to science and how it works. That's it man and at every turn you've side-stepped the issue and made false-accusations of my attacking you.

This is why any further discussion with you on science would be a waste of time, not because you are dumb TJ, but because you are unwilling to read what anyone else is writing. You've got it in your head that "I think I'm superior to you" and so that anything I post, regardless of content, will be met with resistance and an unwillingness to listen on your part.

Good day mang, I have ECG and valvular heart disease studying to do that will be a much better use of my time.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Copasetic

[Beckys_Mom]

*sigh*

Yep. Your intelligence is just too far superior to my own.

Read the Grand Design...OR watch - Is there a Creator? .. then you may understand more.. IMO ..it worked for me..

Edited January 18, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[MedicTJ]

Read the Grand Design...OR watch - Is there a Creato?r.. then you may understand more.. IMO ..it worked for me..

I have read the Grand Design.

It's called the Holy Bible.

[Beckys_Mom]

I'm going to have to agree with BM, you really aren't even reading posts at this point. At no point did I insinuate that my intelligence is far to superior for you. At no point did I claim your intelligence wasn't up to the task of the discussion. I simply asked that you acknowledge something fundamental to science and how it works. That's it man and at every turn you've side-stepped the issue and made false-accusations of my attacking you.

This is why any further discussion with you on science would be a waste of time, not because you are dumb TJ, but because you are unwilling to read what anyone else is writing. You've got it in your head that "I think I'm superior to you" and so that anything I post, regardless of content, will be met with resistance and an unwillingness to listen on your part.

Good day mang, I have ECG and valvular heart disease studying to do that will be a much better use of my time.

If I were new to this, I enter this thread, read your posts along with the rest posting up science information to help others understand... To be honest I wouldn't hare a notion what you were all saying...........

The ONLY reason WHY I hold any amount of understanding...( and still don't know the half of it)... is because I found watching science documentaries helped me over time..

I am one of those people that find it easier to watch the documentary, then it helps me gain an understanding and reading posts from people like yourself or picking up books. I then can see what you all mean..It hits home......You might find that weird.?. But to me it is how I can cope

I feel that posting up some short videos in parts.. would also be very helpful ...so then people can understand more of what you are saying............Just a thought...( oh I am now sounding like PA with - Just a thought lol )

[Beckys_Mom]

I have read the Grand Design.

It's called the Holy Bible.

Oh yea.. the - Oh look God did it by magic.. no real explanation.. a child at 3 can get it..THAT one... I see lol

You know fine well what book I was really referring to ...It's a science book..that helps people like yourself understand in MORE detail ..Or stick with - God did it..

Edited January 18, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[MedicTJ]

Oh yea.. the - Oh look God did it by magic.. no real explanation.. a child at 3 can get it..THAT one... I see lol

If a superior intelligence "did it", that's not magic.

That's called craftsmanship.

And it's still a better explanation than atoms spontaneously gathering together to form something so complex that we have yet to understand it fully. THAT is magic.

[Beckys_Mom]

If a superior intelligence "did it", that's not magic.

That's called craftsmanship.

And it's still a better explanation than atoms spontaneously gathering together to form something so complex that we have yet to understand it fully. THAT is magic.

Can you explain HOW he did it? Can you explain behind the scenes of this...'Craftsmanship? ............. See people who like answers, like to get more detail to gain the understanding

Sometimes for those who are not lazy, will want to learn more...and find it helpful.... I already have my 6yr old getting into it... I do not want her growing up with a lazy attitude of - Well screw the science books I do not get them.. I will run with - God did it..... I will not allow that.. I want her to learn more than that...The God did it easy answer is OK for those that hold no interesting in learning more an stick to a belief with nothing to back it.. that is fine, whatever suits them.......... But not fine for everyone else that likes to gain more !!