An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

It's three quarters of an hour long and it's by someone from Creation Ministries International.

So What? That's not being very scientific of you, Jones.

You want to discuss this then let's discuss this. Watch the video when you have the time. Keep an open mind while your at it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

[PROFITS]

Well, I stopped having these arguments about 5 years ago as I saw they didn't produce any positive results.

Anyhow, I'm kinda bored so I'll set aside some time to hear some answers not I will not respond to. I simply want to hear (and laugh) what people are saying these days on the subject.

I'll give about 5 out of 1000 objections I have to big bang and macro evolution. My conclusion is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based and not scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Please do not try to guess my beliefs as I did not state them at this point. Please just ONLY FOCUS ON PROVING YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FAITH BASED.

#1 Spontaneous Generation. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#2 Spontaneous generation only happening one time if it did supposedly happen. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#3 Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#4 Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related. You're free to call your orange tree uncle, but I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#5 Cold blooded dense boned reptiles evolved into warm blooded hollow boned birds. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

My only claim is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based. That's it, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I stopped having these arguments about 5 years ago as I saw they didn't produce any positive results.

Anyhow, I'm kinda bored so I'll set aside some time to hear some answers not I will not respond to. I simply want to hear (and laugh) what people are saying these days on the subject.

I'll give about 5 out of 1000 objections I have to big bang and macro evolution. My conclusion is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based and not scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Please do not try to guess my beliefs as I did not state them at this point. Please just ONLY FOCUS ON PROVING YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FAITH BASED.

#1 Spontaneous Generation. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#2 Spontaneous generation only happening one time if it did supposedly happen. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#3 Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#4 Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related. You're free to call your orange tree uncle, but I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

#5 Cold blooded dense boned reptiles evolved into warm blooded hollow boned birds. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

My only claim is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based. That's it, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.

In order to address your questions, you need to explain the meaning of your words, which you use oddly...

What are the goal and the means of science?

What are the goal and the means of religion (faith-based systems of belief)?

What does 'faith-based' mean to you?

[jonesthecurl]

Also, please check the name of the forum.
One does not simply walk into the forums, fail to read anything said so far in a thread, drop a pile of poo, and demand people only answer what you've just said.
"Stay on topic" indeed.

[Neoteny]

#2 isn't even a thing. The rest seem to be admissions of ignorance. "I think this is an assumption," is pretty much equivalent to "I haven't bothered to look at any evidence." It often goes hand in hand with, "All I know about the subject I read about from secondhand sources." General consensus on this subject is that people feel capable of talking about technical concept with literally zero knowledge and an inverse amount of smugness. These people are usually dismissed as intellectual cabbages.

Is that funny enough, PROFITS?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

This thread really brings 'em out of the woodworks.

-TG

[PROFITS]

Looks like things haven't changed much in these kind of arguments. A whole lot of insults and not many answered questions. I'm done. Hope you have a great life and let go of whatever it is that causes the bitterness in you.

[Neoteny]

Glad to hear it.

[crispybits]

It's three quarters of an hour long and it's by someone from Creation Ministries International.

So What? That's not being very scientific of you, Jones.

You want to discuss this then let's discuss this. Watch the video when you have the time. Keep an open mind while your at it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Except you posted this video before (can't remember which thread) and you already had it debunked if you'd actually read the responses properly (if I remember right anyway, I know I watched it last time at any rate)

In amongst all the other faults is my favourite:

"It's not up to us to disprove the theory, it's up to the theory to conform to scientific laws."

It again shows the complete lack of understanding of how science really works. There are no "scientific laws", only a huge wibbly wobbly mish mash of loads of interconnected theories. Any theory can come along and join them, and there have been plenty that contradict others and both theories can still stand for a time, because our understanding of reality is not perfect and sometimes when you look at the same thing from different approaches it gives you a different answer. But the job of science is to PROPOSE and then DISPROVE theories. Not to prove them, as no theory is ever entirely proven.

I hear you already saying "well why doesn't science do it's work to disprove creationism then?" and the answer is quite simple, science doesn't have to disprove creationism because the data doesn't fit the theory and it makes no verifiable predictions about what will happen in the future. This disqualifies it from being considered a scientific theory to start with, and as such science doesn't have to bother with it. If it did fit the data and make verifiable predictions then you would find it in science journals alongside all the other theories, but it simply doesn't.

What that video points out is that there are still large holes in how we understand reality, and then you jump to the conclusion "well God did it", but that's not the only possible answer, and we shouldn't stop trying to find out what the actual answer is just because some people say "well it was God (magic)". There will be an answer, and science should keep working to find it.

Find "The poetry of science" on youtube and you'll find a biologist and a physicist discussing all sorts of things, but one of the things they touch on is the fact that the rules of the universe don't have to make sense to us. We are moving away from measuring things with our senses, and building devices which measure the reality of the situation. As a result of this we have found that often reality doesn't "make sense", but they don't deny reality because it seems absurd, we embrace reality and try and get our heads round it as best we can. What that video and many others like it, and the arguments in this thread do, is to assume that reality should be built in such a way as to make sense to us, and the only way you manage that is by inserting God into every gap. That's not science. It's comforting and makes you feel good that you've figured it out, but it's a lie you're telling yourself and has no scientific value whatsoever.

[PROFITS]

#2 isn't even a thing. The rest seem to be admissions of ignorance. "I think this is an assumption," is pretty much equivalent to "I haven't bothered to look at any evidence." It often goes hand in hand with, "All I know about the subject I read about from secondhand sources." General consensus on this subject is that people feel capable of talking about technical concept with literally zero knowledge and an inverse amount of smugness. These people are usually dismissed as intellectual cabbages.

Is that funny enough, PROFITS?

There isn't any evidence of spontaneous generation for me to look at. What evidence are you talking about? I was forced to study this stuff throughout all my childhood and college as well. I've yet to see any evidence for spontaneous generation. Or any of the other things I mentioned. When scientists use words like "we believe" and "it is assumed", and "if" there should be a bell that rings off in your head at some point saying "hey, this may not be true".

[crispybits]

There's a big difference though - when a scientist says "we believe X" it's normally that they've either got decent theoretical maths or indirect empirical evidence that points towards something but doesn't prove it beyond all doubt, a good scientist will very rarely say that we know anything.

As for spontaneous generation - if you're talking about the big bang then what science says is "we don't know what the hell caused it, we can't even work out the physics of it earlier than a few milliseconds after it happened yet" - science doesn't claim to know the cause at all - and if you think it does then you need to go back and look again at science because you misunderstood it. There's various hypotheses sure, but nothing that has come even remotely close to an evidential standard.

Contrast that with actual religious faith, which says "we believe X" and backs it up with..... a book written by primitive desert nomads around 2000 years ago and a warm fuzzy feeling that can't ever be demonstrated to anyone else at all. Sorry but if I have to choose one side or the other to trust has the better picture of reality, I'll trust the guys with the Hubble telescope and the Large Hadron Collider and the constant peer review and search for more information over the guys with a 2000 year old book and a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

[Frigidus]

#2 isn't even a thing. The rest seem to be admissions of ignorance. "I think this is an assumption," is pretty much equivalent to "I haven't bothered to look at any evidence." It often goes hand in hand with, "All I know about the subject I read about from secondhand sources." General consensus on this subject is that people feel capable of talking about technical concept with literally zero knowledge and an inverse amount of smugness. These people are usually dismissed as intellectual cabbages.

Is that funny enough, PROFITS?

There isn't any evidence of spontaneous generation for me to look at. What evidence are you talking about? I was forced to study this stuff throughout all my childhood and college as well. I've yet to see any evidence for spontaneous generation. Or any of the other things I mentioned. When scientists use words like "we believe" and "it is assumed", and "if" there should be a bell that rings off in your head at some point saying "hey, this may not be true".

Well, we've been able to create amino acids in a lab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment I know it isn't quite the same as creating life, but if water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and electricity are all it takes to create the building blocks of proteins it isn't that hard to envision life being spontaneously created over time. As of right now, it is the best theory we have for how we came to be. I suppose it could be proven to be wrong, but so far I haven't heard any viable alternative theories.

As for "macroevolution", while we as a species haven't been around long enough to actually witness it there's plenty of evidence to suggest it occurs. One of my favorite examples is the mule. Mules are the impotent offspring of a horse and a donkey. They are the last remnant of two species that are diverging genetically. Now, while I'm sure you'll claim that this isn't macroevolution, there is not one person that would suggest that fish suddenly turn into squirrels or any crazy shit like that. There are a multitude of tiny steps that lead to great changes over vast stretches of time.

[jonesthecurl]

#2 isn't even a thing. The rest seem to be admissions of ignorance. "I think this is an assumption," is pretty much equivalent to "I haven't bothered to look at any evidence." It often goes hand in hand with, "All I know about the subject I read about from secondhand sources." General consensus on this subject is that people feel capable of talking about technical concept with literally zero knowledge and an inverse amount of smugness. These people are usually dismissed as intellectual cabbages.

Is that funny enough, PROFITS?

There isn't any evidence of spontaneous generation for me to look at. What evidence are you talking about? I was forced to study this stuff throughout all my childhood and college as well. I've yet to see any evidence for spontaneous generation. Or any of the other things I mentioned. When scientists use words like "we believe" and "it is assumed", and "if" there should be a bell that rings off in your head at some point saying "hey, this may not be true".

Thought you were "done".

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I stopped having these arguments about 5 years ago as I saw they didn't produce any positive results.

Anyhow, I'm kinda bored so I'll set aside some time to hear some answers not I will not respond to. I simply want to hear (and laugh) what people are saying these days on the subject.

I'll give about 5 out of 1000 objections I have to big bang and macro evolution.

The Big Bang and Evolution are utterly distinct. One might be true, the other false. Both are theories. Both could potentially be false, but while the evidence for the Big Bang is relatively loose and somewhat difficult for average people to understand, truly... the idea of evolution has a LOT of evidence and evidence fully accessible to anyone bothering to pay attention to the world around and perhaps visit a museum or two without the pre-conceived notion that all scientists not part of the 2 Dr Morris' group are just liars.

My conclusion is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based and not scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Please do not try to guess my beliefs as I did not state them at this point. Please just ONLY FOCUS ON PROVING YOUR CLAIM IS NOT FAITH BASED.

#1 Spontaneous Generation. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

It is not an assumption made in evolution.
The theory of Evolution starts when life is already here.

#2 Spontaneous generation only happening one time if it did supposedly happen. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

Irrelevant, not part of the theory of evolution. Second, what you really mean, becuase you have dismissed evidence shown you, is that higher life forms don't spontaneously generate. No one really disagrees with that.

#3 Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

No, its an idea based upon evidence. You wish to claim the evidence "just doesn't exist". Convenient, but doesn't deal with the problem for people who have seen the evidence for themselves.

Try again... This time, without the anything disagreeing with you is either not there or a lie bit. That is just plain dishonest debate.

#4 Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related. You're free to call your orange tree uncle, but I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

In part, its definition. Life is related simply because it is all life, by definition (Viruses might or might not be life, depending)

Beyond that, where is your proof that the evidence presented is false. OR, where is even a real alternate theory. Ironically enough, the Bible agrees more with evolution on this one than your ideas do.

#5 Cold blooded dense boned reptiles evolved into warm blooded hollow boned birds. I think this is an assumption. I think this is faith based.

My only claim is that big bang and macro evolution are faith based. That's it, please try to stay on topic. Thank you.

No, your only assumption is that you understand science... when you clearly don't and clearly have been so brainwashed into thinking that its OK to just distrust anything science presents as fact that you won't even bother to do any kind of investigation for yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

Looks like things haven't changed much in these kind of arguments. A whole lot of insults and not many answered questions. I'm done. Hope you have a great life and let go of whatever it is that causes the bitterness in you.

Funny, from someone who responds to every query with "that is a lie", the scientists are frauds and responds distortions and ignorance of the theory he claims to refute.

HINT-- it helps if you actually get what a theory says BEFORE you try to refute it. Blithely continuing to combine the Big Bang and Evolution into one phrase as if they were tied or the same pretty much shows you know little or nothing of either theory.