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.

[AAFitz]

#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.

[Dukasaur]

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.

Are you surprised? All the questions you ask have been posed in one form or another, by previous posters, and have been very thoroughly answered by other posters. Then you waltz in and demand that the same questions be answered yet again! Basically, you're saying that you time is too valuable to read what is already there, but other people's time is not valuable, so they can just spend their Saturday afternoon retyping things they've already typed, just to suit your whim. Do you not see how unspeakably rude that is? Or are you lost in narcissism and really do think that your time really is more valuable than everyone else's? As ye sow, so ye shall reap. I'm not at all surprised that your rudeness has been responded to with more rudeness. If anything, I'm surprised that it hasn't been greater.

[Viceroy63]

#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.

[crispybits]

Excuse me? WE'RE arrogant when we disagree with you? Aren't YOU then one claiming some sort of privileged knowledge from a being orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude greater than anything we can even imagine? Aren't YOU the one claiming that you know better than everyone else? But WE'RE arrogant?

[AndyDufresne]

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

--Andy

[Frigidus]

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.

All right, then someone should demonstrate that it is a hoax rather than just speculate about it. It isn't like we've never had a fossil turn out to be something different than we initially thought it was. As soon as someone provides evidence that it isn't what it is claimed to be I will stop regarding it as a missing link. I still wouldn't discard evolution all together, as fossils are not the foundation upon which evolution rests, but I would discard this one concrete example.

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!

The thing is, we can never say that we know something to be true in science. Anything can be disproven, so we can only say that this is what is believed to be true based on the evidence we currently have. Now, this is a world of difference from faith in a religion, but sometimes the same word has multiple meanings.

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.

It is rare that I actually laugh out loud over something on these forums. Thanks for that.

[Viceroy63]

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

--Andy

Yes Andy; Stay in the Lounge. It's safer there. And you don't need to know what is happening here. OK.

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!

The thing is, we can never say that we know something to be true in science. Anything can be disproven, so we can only say that this is what is believed to be true based on the evidence we currently have. Now, this is a world of difference from faith in a religion, but sometimes the same word has multiple meanings.

That has got to be the biggest dump of crap I ever read. If anything can be disproved then there are no facts in existence at all. Science is the search for truth. The truth are the facts and facts can not be disproved. Therefore your statement is false. Just like the false statement that Man evolved from a common ancestors of the monkeys. A Theory with no foundation or evidence.

While the Holy Bible is backed up by Archeology, History and Science facts.

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.

It is rare that I actually laugh out loud over something on these forums. Thanks for that.

Every religion has an Icon and when the icon is a dead person they all have a tomb to be worshiped. Why does Christianity not have a tomb. You mean to tell me that Christians went into persecution right from the start on a foundationless new religion. That It occurred to absolutely no one to just dig up some old bones and present a clever hoax of the Jesus tomb? Like Darwinist do all the time with Archaeopteryx Hoax, Tiltdown Man Hoax, The Horse Exhibit Hoax, Lucy Hoax, and that new one that has yet to show any bones at all, Australopithecus Sebida Hoax.

So laugh all you want because I agree, Ignorance is a funny thing to see in others. So long as it is not me laughing in ignorance.

[Frigidus]

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!

The thing is, we can never say that we know something to be true in science. Anything can be disproven, so we can only say that this is what is believed to be true based on the evidence we currently have. Now, this is a world of difference from faith in a religion, but sometimes the same word has multiple meanings.

That has got to be the biggest dump of crap I ever read. If anything can be disproved then there are no facts in existence at all.

No way you are just realizing this. Surely somebody has told you this before? While reality might be a certain way, we can never be entirely sure that we have a firm grasp on what that reality is. How many times has what we previously thought to be true turned out to be only partially correct or just flat out wrong? Science is a constant work in progress.

Therefore your statement is false. Just like the false statement that Man evolved from a common ancestors of the monkeys. A Theory with no foundation or evidence.

I'm still waiting for a creationist to win that Nobel Prize for demonstrating that the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is flawed. Shit, you should do it if you see things so clearly, you'd be famous.

While the Holy Bible is backed up by Archeology, History and Science facts.

Don't you make me laugh again! Go ahead and lay some of that archeology on me, I can't wait.

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.

It is rare that I actually laugh out loud over something on these forums. Thanks for that.

Every religion has an Icon and when the icon is a dead person they all have a tomb to be worshiped. Why does Christianity not have a tomb. You mean to tell me that Christians went into persecution right from the start on a foundationless new religion. That It occurred to absolutely no one to just dig up some old bones and present a clever hoax of the Jesus tomb?

Cults are funny that way. They'll do all sorts of crazy shit once they've bought in, they'll even sip the Kool-Aid.

[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?

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?

[jak111]

I was going to read the first post fully, but stopped when I realized that you were a crazy raging religious nut pissed off because something speaks against what the bible suggests happened. You are now ranked just above the Westboro Baptist Church members. Which is not good.

Your title is pure irony. Both in the "An Unproven Hypothesis" and the "The Rise of Ignorance", let me explain why both are ironic. First I will start with your ignorance.
I'll even label this in sections to help you read it.

Your ignornace.

Have you ever done a science project? You know, the thing where you question something and then set out to prove it. There is a list you go on.
1.) Question.
2.) Back ground research.
3.) Hypothesis.
4.) Experiment.
5.) Analyze data.
6.) Conclusion.

As you can see, the hypothesis is only the third step and it's a pretty small step at that, it is taking an educated guess at what you believe the conclusion will be before you begin your experiment to prove or disprove it.

Now we continue on with you saying that it is taught like it is fact. Let me pull out a dictionary definition here.

Dictionary definition for the word Theory: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

In case you have trouble understanding what a Theory is, it is a generally accepted but not PROVEN fact about an object/event/etc/etc. Thus it is not taught like it is 100% fact like a Law would be.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm
^ Use that site for Hypothesis, theory, and law if you wish.

So far we have already proven you to be illiterate in all meanings of the term illiterate.
"Adjective
Unable to read or write.
Noun
A person who is unable to read or write.
Synonyms
unlettered - ignorant - uneducated - unlearned"

But I am not finished with your ignorance yet.

[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.

This is my favourite part by you so far. We have seen that you are a religious ignorant nut, but you put down people who would rather try to use science to prove their Theory. While you follow the bible. Something that is not allowed to be questioned because of "religious freedom". Well to any who would argue that I am infringing on religious freedom, I'd like to take a moment here and point out the Freedom of Speech and Rights of Equality here. If he is bashing others who want to actually ask questions and find facts behind what they believe in he is going to have to put up with people who bash his religion for NOT asking questions and not finding proof.

(This whole few next paragraphs besides Viceroy, whom I do not care if he is offended by it do not read if you are easily offended or at least are one of the "Good" christians that do not go around bashing other people because they are not some hate mongering religious kind of being.)

So now we are here to ask a double standard. From the moment you are born into a heavy Christian family you are taught to follow the bible without question. There is no question to whether "god" exists, where he went, what he looks like, or the fact that supposedly to some christian beliefs that he banishes people to hell for being a homosexual, touching themselves, etc. But why does he banish people that he created? Why torture those that he created that are supposedly "perfect" in his eyes? The reason. Because if he exists he doesn't care. It is people twisting it to what they like and dislike as apposed to what god likes or dislikes. Have you spoken to him face to face with the ability to touch him and see him? If not, then you are following something off of which others have told you to be true with NO evidence to back up that he exists or that he is even a he at all.

You question scientists because they only dig up certain sites and find certain bones and not find other bones in between. Well unless you want to let them dig up every square inch of this ENTIRE world it is impossible to find every bit of evolution. Bones are scattered across the world and there are cities probably built on tons and tons of bones below.

But I refuse to get into a big debate with you or anyone else on religion because I am only met with ignorance and the same horse ____ that they use to protect themselves from real questions. Instead, I will give you the definition of a cult.

Cult:
"Noun
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
Synonyms
worship - religion - adoration"

So to put it into simple terms, religion is just another word for a mass cult.

Finally the whole irony behind "An Unproven Hypothesis"

I am starting to believe that you do not fully grasp the English language every well. Of course it is unproven yet, they are still in the experimental/analyzing data part of the protect. That is why it is still known to us as a Theory and not a Law.

Now finally, I am done trying to explain to you where you are wrong, because frankly I feel the majority of my post will be ignored because your ignorance and self pride of what you believe you know much on the subject is too great to actually listen to people who can put many flaws into your argument.

Keep in mind, I am neither religious nor unreligious so when writing this entire post I have written it with a sense of being able to see from both sides of the religion part of the debate. Which you my friend cannot do sadly.