|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: the source of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
My apologies, I haven't paid much mind to that aspect.
I originally did not have the "biotic or primordial environment" bit inserted for thoughtlessness, I went back when realizing I failed to put it in there. I will post reason for edit from now on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Your reply is not applicable to anything I, or anybody here has said. Let's look at it, shall we?
lyx2no writes: 1 - 3% atmospheric CO2 on your planet. It's no wonder your thinking is askew. Have you ever tried thinking in English. All those fancy words, this coming from a guy who likes fancy word BTW, are not you friends. It's not the size of the word that gives it meaning. Now why would I say this? Is it possibly because you, in message 25 said this: the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space. As your error is only off by a factor of between 25 and 83 I suppose you can be forgiven. It's only a little error, and we don't like to speak ill of the dead. NIOSH will only allow us to stay on your planet for 10 minutes because at these concentrations we'd quickly get confused and do something stupid like not leave, and then, and then, and then we're dead ” I hate when that happens. It is an example of your continued spewing of things you know nothing about. I would say that makes it relevant (Elephant ” because I know you missed it earlier, too subtle). The bit about big words not being your friend was also important, but you paid that no heed either because only seven posts later (#50) you thanked Nighttrain for his supplication. Did you bother to look the word up, 'cause maybe you should. What did I say next?
lyx2no writes: "That puddle of water thing" isn't about you; therefore, it is a poor way of saying " . [you're] solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities." so you've gotten one right on a technicality. Don't let it go to your head. Because you said:
homunculus writes: That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities. Seems applicable to something you said to me. I then went on to explain:
lyx2no writes: The puddle is about how life fits it environment not the environment fitting life. Have you ever noticed that there are no gaps between the edge of a puddle and the hole that it is in. That is not because the hole is malleable but because the puddle is. No matter what hole the puddle is put into, it will form itself to the hole. The same is true for life. It will adapt itself to the environment it is in without leaving gaps at the edges. If the extreme temperatures of an environment are 0C and 100C, life will adapt to fit that range. You'll find no life there that can not tolerate that range, nor life that can tolerate long periods of time much outside of that range (nothing that live comfortably at 100C is going to drop dead at exactly 101C). I was thinking as I wrote this that I should add some explanation along the lines of this being in regards to your repeated claim that: . earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances. But then I thought "No, he'll get it. Fool me once . This also goes back to the "thinking in English" bit because of the odd sentence structure..
lyx2no writes: was a response to:
I'm glad that's fine. Is it another one of your rulings? (per message 25 . "I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required") But it's your elephant (this bit was poking fun at your lexiconificationist pretensions) whether a scientist digs ” unless he's in of these digging type of sciences ” a hypothesis or not; if it is indicated it is indicated; If not, not.homunculus writes: Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine. Again, directly applicable it seems to me.
lyx2no writes: homunuculus writes: But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying. I request that you consider what it is you are saying. How can this not be self explanatory? Ah! Fool me twice .
me writes: I've never seen it so it can't happen . get it now? It's only speculation on my part that other people poop . now do you get it? You know . that whole parallel structure thing-a-ma-bob. you writes: I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor. I have never seen a single person taking a poop. I expect you all to explode any minute now. Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Speaking of which, a couple of years ago there was a member that eventually lost his editing privileges. The reason for that was everytime someone refuted a claim he made, he'd go back, edit his post beyond recognition, and declare victory. I actually can't remember his name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
I would like to address the multi-defined word "Evolution".
I understand that Evolutionists (someone who believes in evolution) definition currently is:
"change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection." source; Evolution - Wikipedia But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution. The definitions of each are as follows: -Cosmic Evolution-
Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history”a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). They forgot to mention it is was a theory. -Organic Evolution- (from 'the free dictionary')
organic Evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms This would be where the "distinguished" term abiogenesis falls into. With the presumption organic material inevitably incorporates the inorganic. While it is true organic material is derived from inorganic matter in composition, it is exclusively organic compounds that are required for reproduction and adaptation. subject to, again, decay. Again failing to mention it is not even close to a fact. -Chemical Evolution-
Chemical evolution may refer to: * Nucleosynthesis of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and in stars and supernovas.* Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth may have emerged from non-life. Again, entirely theoretical. This would incorporate nucleic acid instability with the perpetual "polymerization" and "morphogenesis" in abiogenesis. -Macro evolution-
Macro evolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macro evolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with micro evolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Again, Theory. This would be "speciation". Now the trouble starts. It is a fact that living things change and vary over a period of time, through adaptation and reproduction. But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals. -Micro evolution-
Micro evolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. Yes, things change in variation over time due to adaptation and reproduction. Since it's already considered the theory to unite these principles, saying that it is only Variations and adaptation is very partial and down playing. Macro evolution is speculation, micro evolution is observed. Emphasis on Macro evolution being theory. For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal. In conclusion, all but micro evolution are theoretical. They are Not true, Guessing. See the perpetual communication is establishing Evolution as adaptation and varying, or the theory to unite facts with speculation. When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals. So? Neither "proof" nor "personal observation" are required for a scientific theory. The only folks who require such a level of documentation are creationists who wouldn't accept even that--as their beliefs do not depend on evidence, but on revelation and scripture.
In conclusion, all but micro evolution are theoretical. They are Not true, Guessing. "Theoretical," "not true," and "guessing" are not the same. Using sophistry to equate these very different terms is not honest, nor is it accurate.
When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks Oh, you do,eh? If this is the way you are going to define terms you shouldn't plan on discussing any of these subjects with scientists. Scientists define the terms of their fields, not laymen. It is up to laymen to learn the language of science lest their comments reveal them to be either uneducated in science, or deliberately misrepresenting these terms. In either of these cases what a layman thinks or does means nothing. To claim otherwise would be akin to the fleas on a dog thinking that they own the dog and dictate its direction. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again Homunculus.
Homunculus writes:
This is not true. The theory of evolution has always and only referred to one thing, biological evolution, in your examples "macro" and "micro" evolution. But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution. Further, you don't seem to know what a theory means in science. It does not mean "guess" or "nice thought" it means that it is supported by facts, and no experiment has yet refuted it.
For the life of me, no one has ever seen an animal turn into a different animal.
Of course not. This is not what evolution says is happening. Evolution says that change on such a level will take a long time, far longer then we can observe. There is one thing that bothers me here. Did you get this definition from Hovind? If you did, go to this youtube channel and watch the videos on him: ExtanDodo. They have 8 videos about him, 6 shorter, and 2 longer ones. You probably won't like what they are saying, but please watch them. Everything they say is supported by facts and experiments. You can go there if you didn't get the list from Hovind, of course, it's always good to learn new things. You can also think of it in this way, if you find that what they are saying is not true, and you can demonstrate this, you will have taken out one of Hovind's best debunkers. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
homunculus writes: When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation.thanks Evolution does not include cosmology or the big bang. There's a separate forum for that: [forum=-2]. Evolution also does not include geology, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-7]. Evolution also does not include the origin of life, there's a forum for that, too: [forum=-13] Please use the standard definition of the biological concept of evolution. You cited the Wikipedia article on Evolution. If you give it another look you'll see that cosmology, geology and abiogenesis are not part of evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. You might find it causes unnecessary confusion to equivocate over terms, or use terms that very few people use, during a debate. It'll just end up becoming a semantic debate over those terms and the argument will get lost. For evidence: see this thread. I suggest you either find a new term, or create one. How about 'Universal Evolution', or to avoid confusion with Teilhard's theory, "The modern interpretation of Universal Evolution". This will still cause some confusion no doubt, but it might make things a little better. I mentioned a similar thing in your other thread:
quote: the principles of world view. Did you lose interest in that one?
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. Conducive? Is that the word you meant to use? As to what evolution originally meant, we can look it up:
quote: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
But, originally, evolution has a conducive nature of principles. This "theory of evolution" unites several theories, later distinguished. These theories are: Cosmic Evolution, Organic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Macro Evolution and Micro evolution. You omitted the source of this statement: I'm almost certain that it's the tract Big Daddy ? by Jack T. Chick. Chick.com: Big Daddy? Not, shall we say, a terribly respected authority on either etymology or science. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You omitted the source of this statement: I'm almost certain that it's the tract Big Daddy ? by Jack T. Chick. That Jack T Chick tract came out in 2002. I think Chick took it from one of Hovind's seminars or from his infamous $250k challenge: Taken from here - I am fairly sure they predate 2002. Hovind is hardly a stellar (heh) source either though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?
If you choose to believe that because I said, these are theories and life producing life is the only thing we have observed, I applaud your Lack of objective thought. You apparently believe that because I Think its possible for supernatural intercession to have played a part in our existential (standing open for the pursuit of investigation), no matter the contempt, that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought. See its apparent to me that opposites are being played here. I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts. Until you understand what a theory is, you will still be wrong about it.What you consider a theory is at best a hypothesis. No theory is ever proved. It is science because it is done with science, by the scientific method: 1) Propose a hypothesis2) Test the hypothesis 3) Does the hypothesis seem sound if yes, write paper for peer review (beginning the theory acceptance process) If no return to 1) with new hypothesis. As with a theory, the main goal of science is correctness which is why even tho a theory is excepted a robust, it can sitll be falsified if newer evidence is found which is one thing that scientists do. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought. What you are doing is attacking a stawman.
I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Putting aside that ToE has been put to the test (as every good secondary school kid would know), what do you consider to be a good falsification of ToE?
Then until your theory is observed and proved, Science does not deal in proof: you are thinking of maths. Look Homunculus, it really seems that your perception of science is at odds with what science really is. Why do you think this is?
Even if it is held dear in your hearts. Why do you think people do research? Supporting previous peoples work is much less fun that discovering something new. Edited by Larni, : Spellink
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Homes,
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view? Starting with an ad hominem is not generally the best policy, here or elsewhere. It is especially not prudent when linked to a straw man. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and the other disciplines you seek to conflate are descriptions of various aspects the physical world. They are not world views.
I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts. The problem seems to be that even after all the effort that has been put into attempts to educate you, you are still unable to grasp even the most basic definition of "theory". You don't start with a theory, you end up with one after prediction and testing. Rather than wasting time trying to bafflegab words like evolution and theory as you have been doing, perhaps it would be better if you explored the usage of the word "observed" as used in science. (hint: it is related to "prediction", not eyesight.) And, as mentioned many times before, "proved" does not enter into the picture. Nor do "truth" or "authority" as you seem to interpret them. I suspect that this post is a waste of time, since your thinking on the subject is betrayed by your phrase "...held dear in your hearts." You are projecting your own emotions onto others. That sort of emotional commitment to an idea has had no place in the arguments presented to you. It has, however, characterized your own flopping about on the deck, attempting to untangle yourself from a net of ideas by redefining the words used to express them instead of considering the reality of the string. A reality that has, I'm sad to say, led to your claims residing on a pile of fried potatoes, battered and doused in malt vinegar. I found that Semantics 101 was helpful in my own science education. It helped me to recognize when I was thinking about (or arguing about) words themselves, rather than the ideas or things which they are attempting to represent. It served me well as a BS detector as I examined my own creationist beliefs. You could stand to use this kind of careful introspection to clarify what you really mean by words like "life" and "world view", and why they are important to you. You might find that by defining words more carefully you could separate out your relationship with whatever deity you seem intent on worshiping from the physical reality of the universe in which he caused you to exist. To reiterate: attempting to argue a technical subject by redefining well understood professional language simply makes you look like a fool. Capt. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit code typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view? I have no idea what that means; it is certainly not appropriate to a scientific argument.
If you choose to believe that because I said, these are theories and life producing life is the only thing we have observed, I applaud your Lack of objective thought. I have no idea what that means.
You apparently believe that because I Think its possible for supernatural intercession to have played a part in our existential (standing open for the pursuit of investigation), no matter the contempt, that I am attacking science, scientists and objective thought. I have no idea what that means. But as for you attacking science, you are unarmed. To debate matters scientific you have to understand them. You have not shown that you have either the knowledge nor the understanding to compete in the realm of science.
See its apparent to me that opposites are being played here. I am old school. I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts. If you are "old school" it is a pre-science school. Your understanding of the term "theory" as it is used in science is fatally flawed, and this is after I posted some good definitions. In case you missed them, here they are again (with additions; sorry for the length): Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. If you look at these you will see that theories are not just made up on the spot. In science you start with ideas and from these you form testable hypotheses. An hypothesis can only become a theory after a lengthy series of tests. Theories are expected to make accurate predictions, so the testing of predictions generated from hypotheses is a critical part of this process. Theories are not "observed and proved" and then advanced to a higher level. A theory is the highest level of explanation in science. And don't claim that a law is higher, because theories explain laws! Further, don't tell scientists that "you can't call it science, truth or authority" until it is "observed and proved" as that is not a part of the scientific process--it just shows that you have no clue as to how science operates. Nor do you have any role in determining how science operates. That is reserved for scientists to determine. From your posts it would appear that you are operating from belief. Concerning this, Heinlein notes:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024