|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: the source of life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Homunculus.
homunculus writes: But it has never been proven or observed that animals change into new 'kinds' of animals. Yes, it has: when I say "kinds," I mean "anything that looks different from something else." So, since I don’t look identical to my mother or my father, I am clearly a different "kind" from my parents, which is clear evidence of one "kind" changing into another. Therefore, macro-evolution has been proven true. Do you see the importance of using someone’s own terms when debating their ideas? So, take this sentence, for instance:
homunculus writes: When I say Evolution, I mean the theory that incorporates abiogenesis, old age presumption, common ancestry and big bang speculation. Just because you want “evolution” to be a grand worldview incorporating all theories that contradict Genesis, doesn’t mean that scientists see the Theory of Evolution as anything more than a single, small theory that explains only a specific set of phenomena. Furthermore, conflating all these things under the title of "evolution" doesn't allow you to use arguments against one of them as arguments against another of them. Edited by Bluejay, : Drop an "-ism" where it wasn't needed. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
I have taken the liberty of assuming most Evolutionists (again someone that believes in Evolution), conveniently, regularly rearrange the terms and definitions to reason and worm their way into a infallible standpoint. First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.).
Also consider the name of the forum "Creation vs. Evolution". If you insist on dividing "Evolution" from theoretical origins like abiogenesis,the "big bang", old age theory, "chemical evolution" (term in itself) and limiting it to speciation, macro and micro evolution, only micro being proven, then we will have to create a name to suggest that the package deal is a big pile. Not only does Evolution systematically outlaw the supernatural (which is the agenda, I assume), but it presumes strict naturalistic conjoining factors, like above theories (I.E. since the supernatural did not participate in the origin of the universe or life, we have to cook up some theories that gratify our, then subjective, interests.) Finally, if we did that (and we won't), or rather I will satisfy that demand by naming the package deal, "Evilution", (lol, It's just a joke, don't flood me with replies.) but then we would have to retrace our steps and pick out the theories, and sometimes lies, yes lies, from the actual facts. In short, to avoid monotonous "trailing" with you people, we, Creationists, I, will continue to call the whole thing Evolution, despite Evolution Scientists protests, sorry. We just can't get caught up in this endless chase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
You would not give up so early would you? It looks to me as if you might have given up on your search for what really happens. Why do that? You came here with a motive to find out about what really happens in the biological world. Take the good advice offered from the smart people here. You still have the chance to learn something new. "Old school" doesn't have to be Kindergarten. Besides, you're practicing/improving your written communication skills, that's always a plus.
{ABE} You have still not properly addressed so many issues raised by so many concerned forum members. Go back through the material posted by several responders on this thread, you will certainly agree that they have not been answered at all. They brought up salient points for you. You should respect them for their efforts. After all, they have read and considered the material you have posted. Edited by CosmicChimp, : Tacked on some new stuff I just realized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
"the best way to win an argument is to dismiss your antagonists source consideration of point, there by, avoiding their entire point."
Yes, I know what a theory is. No, I will not go to Webster's and post to dignify your attempt at attacking my integrity. You are telling me that a naturalistic attempt of examination and supposition can be called science, and anything contradicting that theory is an attack on science. you said, Until you understand what a theory is, you will still be wrong about it. Well, perhaps I should give you a definition of science first;
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: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge source; Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Seems to me 'KNOWING' something, is exactly that, 'knowing'. it rules that knowing something requires observation, which, I believe, I read it a few years ago, was once included in Webster's dictionary. Even if you say, that science is done with science, by the scientific method: That, as I have said, systematically dismisses the supernatural, leaving a disturbing lack of explanation and principle. (which I believe is the problem here) But on a real time basis, assuming scientists are not omniscient, comparing naturalistic and supernaturalistic ideas as applicable explanations, that makes Evolution just as presumptuous as Creation and with less suggestive material. suggestive material being 'the lack of evidence to suggest the contrary'. not that 'Design', 'the origin of Life' and 'existence of matter and energy' aren't enough to believe in supernatural intercession. In conclusion, when you ordinate dismissing creation before even beginning examinations (which is exactly what I have observed), you are left with a perpetual, senseless, and in my opinion, never ending pursuit. Edited by homunculus, : / dashes to enclose quotes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Homunculus.
homunculus writes: Also consider the name of the forum "Creation vs. Evolution". So, because I'm an evolutionist, you think I had something to do with the name of the website? Please direct your criticisms to the people to whom they apply. This is actually fantastic advice that is applicable in other areas of your life.
For the record, I only play here: I am not affiliated with EvCTM or any of its subsidiaries, and, in fact, stand to gain very little (actually, nothing) from the Theory of Evolution if it proves to be the truth about the history of life, and so, have absolutely no vested interest in the subject at hand except inasmuch as I recognize the educational benefits of the topic. Please understand that I am not a conspirator trying to push an agenda on you, nor do I consider any standpoint that I have made to be "infallible": I only want you to understand that your arguments have no relevance to the position of any scientists on this issue. -----
homunculus writes: First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.)... It was not so long ago that I was there myself, Homunculus. I still remember very clearly feeling the same way. But, insisting that this viewpoint be treated with respect by scientists really only shows a lack of willingness on your part to learn about your opposition. The very least you could do is try to understand the argument as it is presented before you. -----
homunculus writes: ...In short, to avoid monotonous "trailing" with you people, we, Creationists, I, will continue to call the whole thing Evolution, despite Evolution Scientists protests, sorry. We just can't get caught up in this endless chase. You are fully welcome to continue your line of attack, but you will have to sooner or later come to grips with the fact that the position you are arguing against is not a position that anybody holds (i.e., it is a straw man argument), so the only people that will complain when you start beating up on this idea are people who don't actually exist. ----- I hope this will be the last time I have to say this [/impossible dream]: There is no accepted scientific theory for the origin of life on Earth, although individual scientists may favor one hypothesis or another (there are may hypotheses to choose from). But, there is plenty of solid supporting evidence that life (wherever it came from) evolved from its initial state into its current state by natural selection. Evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct phenomena, and if you refuse to acknowledge this, then I guess you will just have to have fun shadow-boxing with your strawmen. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Hi modulous, I've read some of your previous posts on other threads and have noted you to be a cogent poster, good. Not like me, who runs the mouth too often, I'm sure.
quote: Agreed, but unfortunately I use a common term, "Evolution" which has been protested that I use it in that sense, since then I have reconsidered my application of that word. I've decided to call this union of theories "Evilution", (tickles me every time) to illustrate the creationists prospects on Evolutionary theories.
Thread the principles of world view in Forum Faith and Belief. Did you lose interest in that one? well, not really, I haven't yet been to it, since it's post. I know, but I've been replying to this one and looking at others. In addition, I feel a sense of complacency when addressing that one, more of an address than subject of disscussion, concerning providence, purpose, meaning of life, morality and all that. But I will look at it momentarily. Thanks for the reference to the word Evolutions meanings, original and current. I'll take that into consideration from now on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Shows us exacly that you don't know what you're talking about. Maggots don't "spawn" from organic fester, nor do bacteria. Maggots are fly larvae, they come from the egss put there by flies. And bacteria are everywhere anyway, they don't "magically" appear in organic fester either, they can just thrive and reproduce in it better, as can fungi. Of course I know that maggots are fly larvae, I doubt you will give me that much, but irrelevant. Same with the bacteria, bacteria is what makes inorganic material, organic, not solely but makes it subject to decay.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Let's see some
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Can I ask that you please structure your sentences in a different way? Your post have the feel of someone torturing the English language to come across more erudite than you are. No. Concerning the editing bit, handled. I will list reason for edit from now on, no matter the irrelevance.
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. No one would deny this. What would be denied is that observing life only on Earth (currently) equals your god (I assume you mean Yahweh) being a creator. While it is true that I believe in god/creation and in this thread I assert that -life producing life, in organic biology, is the only thing that has been observed-, it is not true that I said that was a scientific fact, though I believe it to be the truth. On a level of examination and process of elimination, since we have not found "the source of life" or proven one of the suggested theories, I reserve the right to continue to believe. So, no, "observing life on earth (currently), does not = my god"that = not knowing/observing life's origin. My formula is [belief in god + not finding naturalistic scientific proof in explanations for the origin of life, universe, macro evolution ](note: even if qualifying evidence was found to prove one of these theories, that would not necessarily mean it was due to lack of supernatural intercession. Just thought I would point that out.) Edited by homunculus, : = suggestive standpoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Hi Huntard, wanted to say I've passed through the Netherlands once a few years ago, beautiful country.
The Providential Law is my way of saying that: 1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter. Then where did the original life come from, if it can only come from living or once living matter? This process, provides 2 possible conclusions, -supernatural intercession- or -naturalistic autopoiesis and succession-Of which, no evidence has been provided to outlaw one and prove the other. 2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return. Your evidence for this being? This, my friend, is observable, to what we understand. Rivers return to the oceans. The dead return to the ground. Everything with a beginning has an ending and that ending shifts contents back to original matter/energy, This is anyways a fallacy That no one can disagree with. The burden of proof is not on me on this one.
3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause. Again, please provide evidence. Every effect is the product of a cause, for elaboration see explanation #2. Edited by homunculus, : (#2)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
See reply to Huntard message #54.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
This is a, and I say this haphazardly, general agreed calculation amongst creationists that the bible illustrates a genealogy that dates back to "adam and eve and the days of the garden of eden", including the "6 day creation" the bible tells about. We use the bible as our reference to this and therein lies the "uncertainty of Substance". I would elaborate more, but that is a topic for another thread, much more to pick apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2361 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
homunculus writes: First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.). Are you asserting that you (yourself) are "most people"? I think that's a mistake. Most people I know are able to understand that astronomy, biology, geology, etc, are different branches of science, and that the term "evolution", as a scientific theory, applies only in biology.
... we will have to create a name to suggest that the package deal is a big pile. I think the the name you are looking for here is simply "science" -- no need to create a new term. The thing that you are disputing and having trouble with is not just evolution, which is part of science; you seem to be having trouble with all science.
Not only does Evolution systematically outlaw the supernatural (which is the agenda, I assume), but it presumes strict naturalistic conjoining factors... You see, that is where you should use the word "science" instead of "evolution". It is true that science cannot accept, posit or build theories on the supernatural, because the supernatural is, by definition, unobservable, impossible to prove by means of research or experimentation, and ultimately subjective rather than objective. If two different people decide to assign different supernatural explanations for something (e.g. why some children die of cancer, or why some women die in child birth), there will never be any sound basis for showing that either explanation is better than the other one. By insisting on purely natural explanations for things, based on observable evidence and reasonable assumptions about the continuity and consistency of physical phenomena (such as rates of radioactive decay for various elements, rates of tectonic movement and sedimentation, rates of genetic mutation, the speed of light, etc), it is possible, and common practice, to compare two different explanations for something, by figuring out how they would make different predictions about future observations, and then testing those predictions to see which ones turn out to be right. The explanation that yields wrong predictions is discarded. Scientific explanations for why some children die of cancer, or why some women die in child birth, are still incomplete, but as more observations are made, more hypothetical causes are tested and more is learned, these explanations improve -- and as they improve, there can be a real reduction in the number of childhood cancers and child birth fatalities. Do you want to assert that one or another supernatural explanation for such things can help to reduce their frequency of occurrence? (One more point on the notion of "reasonable assumptions about the continuity and consistency of physical phenomena": these phenomena are measured repeatedly with ever increasing accuracy and closer attention to factors that might skew or distort the measurements, as well as factors that cause variation in the phenomena, such as environmental conditions that affect the presence or absence of particular radioactive elements in the atmosphere. The "assumptions of continuity" are well-founded, having been based on quantities of observations that establish a measurable degree of reliability.) So do yourself a favor when discussing your point of view on this forum: admit that the thing you are arguing against is science in general, not just evolution. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
homunculus writes:
Ok, it seemed from your comment you thought they spawned out of nothing. I appologize.
Of course I know that maggots are fly larvae, I doubt you will give me that much, but irrelevant. Same with the bacteria, bacteria is what makes inorganic material, organic, not solely but makes it subject to decay. homonculus writes:
Here Huntard writes:
Let's see some There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. {ABE}The most important thing in the link is probably the various dating methods used, and they all corroborate each other. I didn't want to go to deeply in to this, since it's a bit off topic here, that's why i just posted a link, sorry about that. Edited by Huntard, : See {ABE} I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
homonculus writes:
Thanks, I've never been to America (I assume that's where you're from), but I'm sure there are very beatiful places there as well.
Hi Huntard, wanted to say I've passed through the Netherlands once a few years ago, beautiful country. This process, provides 2 possible conclusions, -supernatural intercession- or -naturalistic autopoiesis and succession-
The point is that it is logical to conclude that life MUST come from non-life at some point. It hasn't always existed, therefore it must have come from non-life at some point in time. How this happened exactly we don't know yet, but science is getting there.
Of which, no evidence has been provided to outlaw one and prove the other. This, my friend, is observable, to what we understand. Rivers return to the oceans.
Rivers don't come from oceans.
The dead return to the ground.
Some have been shot into space.
Everything with a beginning has an ending and that ending shifts contents back to original matter/energy, This is anyways a fallacy That no one can disagree with.
It's a fallacy? So you're saying it's wrong, yet everybody says it's right? Sorry, but I don't follow.
The burden of proof is not on me on this one.
Yes it is, you made the claim.
Every effect is the product of a cause, for elaboration see explanation #2.
Than what was the cause for the effect known as god? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
homonculus writes:
Here Huntard writes:
Let's see some There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It may be a fine link, but we need more (remember forum rule 5). Maybe we need a new "Age of the Earth" type topic. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024