An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[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".

Indeed, and they believe and have assumed a great number of things, but all because the overwhelming evidence over hundreds of years of study, have led them to that conclusion.

A bell should prbobably go off in your head that says, "hey, maybe they are on to something here" I mean, they are the same people that invented space ships, xray machines, mri machines and little robots driving around Mars.

Your guy's been reading out of a book every Sunday....ringing bells.
Which incidentally, are caused by sound waves. Scientists assume and believe they exist too.

Bring, Bring. Time to wake up.

How can you possibly be so arrogant and so ignorant for lack of not saying the word Stupid! Read the damn article and do not be so prejudice. All your life you were taught a lie and so naturally it should be true???

All the evidence that proves the theory of evolution comes from the fossil records and from nowhere else. All the fossil evidence is fake and none of it true. Read it for yourself...

"Less than two months later, in 1861, Haberlein had another specimen for sale, but this time it was of the entire creature except for its head."
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

OK; Archaeopteryx is a hundred year old Hoax. The same person found only two specimens within two months time and in a hundred years no other Archaeopteryx has ever been found. Why is that? Yet it has been sold and taught to millions and for millions.

This whole Thread is filled with scientific evidence that all the presentations that prove the theory of evolution is false and misleading.

And for the record; Assumptions are not science. So when any Scientist or teacher of science start to use those words like Belief, then yes, Bells should go off in one's head. Big Ass Fire Alarm Bells!

Even Religious Belief's are based on facts! And not theories.
The empty tomb of Jesus is a fact or else his bones would be on displayed today.

Still waiting for your evidence that Jesus existed.
Lack of bones proves that King Arthur will rise again too.

[premio53]

Frigidus, you claim "there is no evidence of a world wide flood." You are either not telling the truth or are ignorant. Here is some proof.

1. Over 500 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account.

2. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (26,000 –29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other oceandwelling animals.

3. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

4. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.


Those are just a few of the facts involved that are best explained by a flood described in Genesis chapters 6 and 7. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Peter 3:3–8).

[Neoteny]

It's amusing how desperately the ubertheists want to conflate science with religious belief. It's almost as if they are trying to bring us down to their level rather than elevate themselves. It's sad, really.

[jonesthecurl]

Premio:

"Cinderella" is told around the world in almost every culture. Doesn't mean it's true.
And for the rest, go and look how mountains form. Or are all geologists in on the great scam too?

[Frigidus]

1. Over 500 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account.

Irrelevant. They're stories. There are a lot of stories about a lot of things that are correctly viewed as fiction.

2. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (26,000 –29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other oceandwelling animals.

This wouldn't surprised me considering that Mt. Everest is the result of two tectonic plates colliding.



There used to an ocean where the Himalayas now are.

3. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

OK.

4. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

I'm going to need a source for this...preferably a credible source.

People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Peter 3:3–8).

I assure you that is not the case with me.

[jonesthecurl]

Were there dinosaurs in the arc?
Opinions please.

[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".

There's plenty of evidence for abiogenesis, which is the term you mean to use here, since spontaneous generation is actually a related, but whole different thing. Something to do with cooked milk; I dunno. Anyway, the great thing about evidence is that a piece of evidence can support many theoretical frameworks. For example, the very existence of life is evidence for abiogenesis. That same existence of life is evidence for special creation. It is also evidence for theistic evolution. Another evidence for abiogenesis is the natural formation of amino acids and other organic compounds from basic chemical materials. Whether and how this fits into other nonscientific theories is beyond my knowledge and my ability to give a shit. But it fits very well into what we have empirically observed about life. Things that we have not empirically observed: god, magic, and aliens.

So, saying "There isn't any evidence of spontaneous generation for me to look at," reveals a distinct ignorance of the concepts of scientific inquiry and really brings into question your integrity when you say you were forced to study it throughout your childhood and college. Either you weren't forced, or you didn't actually study it, because you don't seem to have learned anything resembling an elementary knowledge of the topic. So, we'll assume this answers your first assertion.

Assertion #2: still isn't a thing. Darwin himself discussed this.

But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

So it could have happened several times, but there isn't really a way to know. It only needed to happen once.

Assertion #3: Invertebrates giving rise to vertebrates. This sort of implies a further lack of knowledge about evolutionary branching. But I'll ignore that. What's important here is that there is a large amount of evidence indicating that invertebrates predated vertebrates, and a long chain of transitional forms with various types of neural arrangements that flow pretty smoothly from invertebrate to vertebrate body plans. Google would probably help you with this.

Assertion #4: I don't understand why creationists have so much trouble with this. Even from a special creation perspective, we can be argued to all be related. DNA is pretty easy to prove, and there is a relative amount of sharing between species. God as the ultimate scientist building with conservative tools still implies a relationship between all species. I've never understood why people get their panties in such massive, sweaty, tangled wads over this. They say smug things about uncles and mothers like it's so painfully insulting, and ignore the idea that being made out of dirt (metaphorically or otherwise) is not that much better. I'd rather be related to an orange tree than to you, for what that's worth.

Assertion #5: Again, divergence. We don't actually know that dinosaurs were all cold- or warm-blooded. Bone density isn't that hard to change genetically. Maybe this will help?

#1 Still no proof of spontaneous generation. Why would you question my integrity about having to learn evolution and big bang? Did you not go to school? It's taught at pretty much every public and private school from elementary through high school. Not to mention you are obligated to take classes in college to fulfill general ed that teach on the subject. For various majors, the classes required to take also teach further on the subject.

#2 The physical portion of any book that states spontaneous generation happening one time is a thing. Darwin's quote only shows that he is taking a wild leap of faith.

#3 You start off with insinuating my claim that invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates is ignorant, than follow it up with claiming a long chain of transitional forms with various types of neural arrangements that flow pretty smoothly from invertebrate to vertebrate body plans. Please refer me to one of these transitional forms you believe to be true. Do you agree with 100% of the stuff in the link you provided for me? I don't want to waste my time for you to agree with me that the one thing I chose to study on and debate was bogus, but you believe the rest.

#4 I'm not so sure I would limit this to creationist, but I think anybody with a brain may be hesitant to believe we are physically related to an orange tree and a rock. The belief that a designer simply used similar DNA for different creations is just as valid. Well, seems our beliefs both point to us being related, but I can't agree with you on the orange tree part. Welcome to the family

#5 You don't know that dino's were cold or warm blooded? Funny you chose an extinct animal I didn't mention by name for this topic. What about other reptiles that are around today? Can we talk about those? Maybe reptiles and birds that are currently living that we can establish and come to an agreement upon whether they are warm or cold blooded before we get further into the topic.

[jonesthecurl]

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.

Hmm. Looks like your grasp of the words "I'm done" is about as good as your grasp of science.

[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.

Hmm. Looks like your grasp of the words "I'm done" is about as good as your grasp of science.

Still no proof of spontaneous generation. How are you determining my "grasp on science"? I'm a complete stranger to you. We haven't even began to discuss much in detail yet. What are you basing this huge assumption about a complete stranger on?

[jonesthecurl]

, I'm kinda bored so I'll set aside some time to hear some answers not I will not respond to.

sigh. If only that were true.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's amusing how desperately the ubertheists want to conflate science with religious belief. It's almost as if they are trying to bring us down to their level rather than elevate themselves. It's sad, really.

Some people have a fear of heights.

and... if the word "race" includes groups that vary on fundamental beliefs (theists, atheists, agnostics), then are you being racist? Maybe Acrophobist?

[Maugena]

Ladies and gents, I've figured it out.
Viceroy's just a troll.

[crispybits]

It's normally = not a fact = faith based. decent theoretical maths or indirect empirical evidence that points towards something but doesn't prove it beyond all doubt = not a fact = faith based. IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A BELIEF. The problem is when you start running your mouth like we are debating FACTS against BELIEFS. We are debating BELIEFS against BELIEFS.

I never once mentioned "what caused it". Only show me proof that spontaneous generation happens. My belief is that there is not anything that can cause spontaneous generation because it's simply not possible. It didn't happen. So you admit nothing comes close to an evidential standard, yet you BELIEVE IN IT. IT IS A BELIEF.

What does religious faith have to do with our debate about whether macro evolution and/ or big bang are a belief or fact? There are thousands of religions and you choose 2000 years ago as your example. Sounds like you have a personal disliking to Christianity and it has blinded your mind. You'll pretty much believe in anything that is against Christianity no matter how ridiculous is the impression I'm getting.

Not really. Normally = there will always be scam artists that through corruption or genuine mistaken belief will try to use pseudo-science to establish "facs" that are not true. These are the vast minority though. Ironically enough this small sub-set includes the kind of people you have been conned by, and now you.

OK so we're talking about spontaneous generation as in how did life form. Again the science doesn't say we know. There are hypotheses, and the one that starts with complex organic compounds and goes up through RNA to DNA to simple life and then complex life seems to fit what we have evidence for in many other areas, but it could just as easily have been carried here on a meteor and we're not even close. That's why there is no "Theory of Abiogensis", we simply don't have the evidence to say that this or that is almost definitely what happened. Anyone who claims they do has either got all their working out and supporting evidence and is about to win a Nobel prize and become pretty damn wealthy, or is a scam artist using pseudo-science or pure faith without evidential grounds

As for beliefs being different - lets say it's raining where I am and I can hear the raindrops falling on my roof. I believe that if I don't wear a waterproof coat when I go out today that I will get wet. Contrast that with the belief that I should wear a tin foil hat if I go out today to stop aliens mind-controlling me. One is evidence based, and can be backed up by repeatable and verifiable experiments (I could go out 10 times, half the time wearing a coat and half the time not and seeing which times I get wet). The other is based on irrational superstition about something I cannot claim any genuine knowledge of, and cannot even begin to form a properly repeatable experiment to test.

The belief in our current chemical model of spontaneous generation is backed up by chemistry and the rules we have discovered about how complex molecules interact with each other, the belief that it simply didn't happen that way is also valid, as there is no concrete proof that we have found (though we have proved that it is theoretically possible to have the conditions necessary for chemical abiogenesis on a young and forming Earth, the silver bullet of it actually happening in a lab is still missing). But if you're a scientist, and you say "X didn't happen the way we thought" then you have to provide a reason WHY the current model is not possible, not just state that you don't believe in it, or your objection is about as valid as someone saying "I don't believe chocolate ice cream exists" without providing any reasoning or proof.

As for the anti-religious thing I had to laugh, you obviously haven't been in these forums long. My opinion, freely expressed several times in several threads is as follows: Organised religion is man's most abusive and dangerous invention ever (far worse that genetically engineered viruses or nuclear weapons) and anyone trying to spread it to others should be regarded as lower than the worst war criminal, and anyone trying to spread it to kids too young to understand what they're being told to believe should be strung up and shot at dawn. I don't think I could be much clearer about my opinion on that if I tried. Thankfully for the religious of the world this is my personal opinion, and I haven't gone out and made up an imaginary friend who is all powerful and agrees with me and will send anyone who doesn't become his slave and worship him to eternal torment, because if I could make that kind of false authority stick, well, it wouldn't be pretty for you guys. This thread isn't rally for that debate though, so take it to PM or find the relevant thread if you want to challenge me on that opinion rather than derailing this one.

[Neoteny]

#1 Still no proof of spontaneous generation. Why would you question my integrity about having to learn evolution and big bang? Did you not go to school? It's taught at pretty much every public and private school from elementary through high school. Not to mention you are obligated to take classes in college to fulfill general ed that teach on the subject. For various majors, the classes required to take also teach further on the subject.

You didn't really ask for proof of abiogenesis. You asked for proof that the claim is not faith-based, which is a problematic term on its own, but we're going with it. Abiogenesis is the logical hypothesis for the origin of life in a universe without supernatural intervention. As long as the supernatural remains undetectable, that's what we have to go with. This fact does not make anything faith-based. The current theoretical framework of abiogenesis (which has been tested quite a bit, and is showing promising results. It's a very exciting field of biochemistry right now) is the most probable of hypothesized scenarios. This also does not make adhering to the theory faith-based, because the probability is founded upon consideration of all known variables. Just because we don't know for sure does not make it faith-based. We have faith that probability and science are reliable, because we have tested their reliability, much as I'm sure you've tested your faith in whatever and found it reliable. We just have numbers and stuff to test. So, if you want to say this sort of thing is faith-based, that's where you really want to target your irrational wrath. A bunch of scientists who think that abiogenesis probably occurred one way, but are open to further investigation are not really effective targets for your whining.

#2 The physical portion of any book that states spontaneous generation happening one time is a thing. Darwin's quote only shows that he is taking a wild leap of faith.

I have not seen any books that state abiogenesis can only or needs to happen one time. I think you are completely making this up. This is why it's not a thing. Darwin is making no leap of faith; he's hypothesizing as to why abiogenesis will be difficult to observe in the wild. Your second point here is seriously not a real thing.

#3 You start off with insinuating my claim that invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates is ignorant, than follow it up with claiming a long chain of transitional forms with various types of neural arrangements that flow pretty smoothly from invertebrate to vertebrate body plans. Please refer me to one of these transitional forms you believe to be true. Do you agree with 100% of the stuff in the link you provided for me? I don't want to waste my time for you to agree with me that the one thing I chose to study on and debate was bogus, but you believe the rest.

Which link are you talking about?

In the meantime, here's an invertebrate to vertebrate transitional form. Cnidarian, hemichordate, Ken Ham.





I can fill in other transitional body plans if you feel I need to.

#4 I'm not so sure I would limit this to creationist, but I think anybody with a brain may be hesitant to believe we are physically related to an orange tree and a rock. The belief that a designer simply used similar DNA for different creations is just as valid. Well, seems our beliefs both point to us being related, but I can't agree with you on the orange tree part. Welcome to the family

Well, we aren't direct descendants of rocks, since rocks can't mate. They don't even have gonads. I'm seriously questioning your biology education. But, yes, from many perspectives, there is a wonderful relationship between all living things. I hear Steve Tyler practices on a peach most every night, for what that's worth.

#5 You don't know that dino's were cold or warm blooded? Funny you chose an extinct animal I didn't mention by name for this topic. What about other reptiles that are around today? Can we talk about those? Maybe reptiles and birds that are currently living that we can establish and come to an agreement upon whether they are warm or cold blooded before we get further into the topic.

Oh, haven't you heard? Birds evolved from dinosaurs. We aren't sure about the metabolism of dinosaurs, so it's entirely possible that they were warm blooded before all the feathers and whatnot. Therapods, which birds are descended from, have hollow bones too! Isn't science grand? Bone density and metabolism are pretty variable, so if you want to put your name on a fallacy that eliminates all evidence except the evidence you really want me to use, I'm happy to work on a funny term.

[PLAYER57832]

Frigidus, you claim "there is no evidence of a world wide flood." You are either not telling the truth or are ignorant. Here is some proof.

1. Over 500 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account.

True. But while this can count as evidence, it is not PROOF. It is reason to think the idea is possible, but not definitive. All 500 legends could be wrong or distortions of a real event.

2. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (26,000 –29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other oceandwelling animals.

NOT, I repeat NOT evidence of the flood. This is evidence of plate techtonics.

Mt. Everest and the Himalaya Mountains were once sea floor on the northern edge of the Indo-Australian Plate. As that plate moved north, it collided with the Eurasian Plate. The two plates crunched together, forming the Himalaya, Pamir, Hindu Kush and other mountain ranges in the region. In fact the Himalya are still rising.

The rock that was once sea floor rose up over a period of about 30 million years, and brought all the fossils with it.

3. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

These layers come from a range of dates. To prove the flood we would need to find a uniform layer from the exact same time frame covering the Earth.

Note, the absence of this does not necessarily prove there was no flood. Even though every animal on Earth was killed, they might not have fossilized and 40 days of flood is not necessarily long enough to leave much of a trace in the millions of potential years for this to have happened. However, the fact is there is no proof, yet that the Earth was ever fully covered with water.

Biblically, religiously, there is debate over whether the words really meant the entire world as has been essentially assumed for generations or if the real meaning was the known world at that time. That is a possibility that would change both the evidence needed and the likelihood.

4. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

Nothing to do with Noah's flood, sorry.

Those are just a few of the facts involved that are best explained by a flood described in Genesis chapters 6 and 7. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Peter 3:3–8).

Uh, no. They speak of a group of people so intent on presuming to prove the Bible that they are willing to stretch any fact they get their hands on into something that they imagine to support the Bible... even when it is quite clear that the evidence shows something very different than their claims.