Oh don't get me wrong I'm not upset man. I don't think you were personally attacking me. We're cool. I just think that this thread has lost it's original zest. It's not as enjoyable as it was. You know as well as I that there are certain things I am not allowed to talk about according to rules so I can't completely explain certain points so I don't get a completely fair shake. However I do think we are all at an impasse here. Maybe we could jump start this again at a future date or different arena. I would like to see a thread on what could be out there in the universe like you mentioned. Probably can't happen at MFK but I wouldn't mind following that. I like debates. This is a really touchy one though. Hopefully we can opine in another debate. Also I don't want to jeopardize my standing here. I like this site and I can't say certain things. I hope you can empathize with me here.
Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya
- Thread starter mercury904
- Start date
Wow, this thread has really expanded since I posted last night. The photo lounge probably isn't the best venue for an evolution vs other ideas debate so maybe this should be moved to "The Lounge".
I was deliberate in my phrasing and stick by it. Call it an educated guess if you would like, but my point was that there was a failure to even understand what that guess was.
Every single person that I have heard argue against evolution, including yourself, has fundamental misconceptions about evolutionary theory. You have made this clear numerous times throught this thread. Common tactics that result from this misunderstanding include strawmen arguments that distort the definition of "theory" and attempt to link evolution to abiogenesis.
As has been said numerous times already, a theory in science is a model that best explains the existing data. Since research is constantly expanding, it's possible that data could always arise that doesn't fit with the model in which case the theory would have to be revised. So at any given time, a scientific theory is the best model that is consistent with all the available data. This is the case with evolutionary theory - it's the best explanantion for the existing data. Technically speaking, for a theory to become a law, all possible data must have been collected and must be consistent with the theory. Collecting every possible piece of data that pertains to a theory is impossible which is why there are no laws in biology.
Evolutionary theory does not depend on abiogenesis and, strictly speaking, only addresses the selective forces that acted on organisms once they came into existence. That being said, abiogenesis is fascinating area in its own right and darwinian selective forces could quite possibly have played a role in the self assembly of early life. For those of you who are intestested, I think this article offers an interesting model for abiogenesis: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1051
Before anyone starts to argue about the flaws of evolutionary theory I think it should be required for them to read through every relevant article on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
I think it's probably the best layman's compilation of articles on evolution and addresses pretty much every Creationist/ID claim that I've heard. It's written in a fairly straightforward way and should be understandable to most readers who want to get into these sorts of arguments. I think that at the very least people should truly understand something before they feel qualified to point out its flaws.
Ullopincrate;2888782; said:
I was deliberate in my phrasing and stick by it. Call it an educated guess if you would like, but my point was that there was a failure to even understand what that guess was.
Every single person that I have heard argue against evolution, including yourself, has fundamental misconceptions about evolutionary theory. You have made this clear numerous times throught this thread. Common tactics that result from this misunderstanding include strawmen arguments that distort the definition of "theory" and attempt to link evolution to abiogenesis.
As has been said numerous times already, a theory in science is a model that best explains the existing data. Since research is constantly expanding, it's possible that data could always arise that doesn't fit with the model in which case the theory would have to be revised. So at any given time, a scientific theory is the best model that is consistent with all the available data. This is the case with evolutionary theory - it's the best explanantion for the existing data. Technically speaking, for a theory to become a law, all possible data must have been collected and must be consistent with the theory. Collecting every possible piece of data that pertains to a theory is impossible which is why there are no laws in biology.
Evolutionary theory does not depend on abiogenesis and, strictly speaking, only addresses the selective forces that acted on organisms once they came into existence. That being said, abiogenesis is fascinating area in its own right and darwinian selective forces could quite possibly have played a role in the self assembly of early life. For those of you who are intestested, I think this article offers an interesting model for abiogenesis: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1051
Before anyone starts to argue about the flaws of evolutionary theory I think it should be required for them to read through every relevant article on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
I think it's probably the best layman's compilation of articles on evolution and addresses pretty much every Creationist/ID claim that I've heard. It's written in a fairly straightforward way and should be understandable to most readers who want to get into these sorts of arguments. I think that at the very least people should truly understand something before they feel qualified to point out its flaws.
Since you are addressing me in particular, I'll answer you. It's easier for you to debate because creationists aren't allowed to talk. I have expressed certain beliefs in evolution that I agree with. However there is no evolution without life. If you can't explain how life started then we again are at an impasse. period. I looked at your link to talkorigins which is extremely biased almost to the point of hatred and mockery of creationists. I have no time in my life for that when all I hear about is tolerance for everything else. Now on to your next link.
This one (fasebj) was interesting but still doesn't show me life. It's a good read but it's not proving life came from nothing. It is written with an agenda as was my chemistry story which contradicts life coming from nothing (have a read, I posted it 2x).. You, aren't qualified to argue with the guy who wrote my chemistry story nor am I qualified to argue with the authors of your post. You seem to think that your knowledge dwarfs all other posts and links. But guess what? I disagree.
You have shown me some interesting reading material but again have proven nothing. This is the real point. We have opposing view points. This was fun for awhile but no one will triumph. This is an impasse. You can not get around it. Neither can I. Why spat about it? 
This one (fasebj) was interesting but still doesn't show me life. It's a good read but it's not proving life came from nothing. It is written with an agenda as was my chemistry story which contradicts life coming from nothing (have a read, I posted it 2x).. You, aren't qualified to argue with the guy who wrote my chemistry story nor am I qualified to argue with the authors of your post. You seem to think that your knowledge dwarfs all other posts and links. But guess what? I disagree.
You have shown me some interesting reading material but again have proven nothing. This is the real point. We have opposing view points. This was fun for awhile but no one will triumph. This is an impasse. You can not get around it. Neither can I. Why spat about it? I'm not saying it can't be correct. I'm not omnipotent. That's like saying because there is no evidence of a supreme being, the idea can not be correct because it is not supported by evidence. I'm not a zealot. But I have trouble believing some things that others tell me I should take because it's the best possible answer. It might be for them but not for me.
I'm not saying it can't be correct. I'm saying I am inclined to disagree with life popping out of spontaneous chemical reactions.
I also realize you are trying to lead me. Remember the rules of the forum.
That's like saying because there is no evidence of a supreme being, the idea can not be correct because it is not supported by evidence.
I also realize you are trying to lead me. Remember the rules of the forum.
That's like saying because there is no evidence of a supreme being, the idea can not be correct because it is not supported by evidence.
I'm not leading you anywhere my friend, I am using deductive reasoning to help me understand your beliefs.
This is a double negative, which is by definition the equivalent of you agreeing that it could be correct.
So do you in fact believe that there is a possibility that life evolved from chemical reactions? Remember, I'm asking this strictly based off of what you have posted. I'm not leading you, only mirroring what you have posted.
Ullopincrate said:
This is a double negative, which is by definition the equivalent of you agreeing that it could be correct.
So do you in fact believe that there is a possibility that life evolved from chemical reactions? Remember, I'm asking this strictly based off of what you have posted. I'm not leading you, only mirroring what you have posted.
Cohazard;2895623; said:
There is proposed evidence that life arose from chemical reactions. I am inclined to disagree with the evidence. There is evidence proposed that random chemical reactions to create life is a long shot (understatement at best) and I am more inclined to agree with this school of thought. My beer is almost finished and I am going to go dream of big fish tanks but I'll try to stay for one more exchange. Or we can pick up later.
