evolutionary theory wrang footprints

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree. But no more illogical than this 'out of nothing' theory. </div></div>

close...but what you are not recognizing is that it is the same 'theory.' all you've done by introducing a creator is to add an extra step and now ignoring the logical conclusion of your model- it still logically resolves to what you are saying is your problem.

so in the face of this realization, you simply have to revert to agnosticism. there's no point in introducing a creator. you are still dealing with out of nothing.

that's why some of the predictions now being modeled deal with a permanent universe, that doesn't need creating. this is why you are limiting yourself and keeping yourself in the dark, because you have a preconception about what science is trying to do, and what conclusions it can make about the early state of the universe.

if you get what I am saying, you'll have to abandon what is not logical, and a &quot;creator&quot; is on equal footing with what you think you are rejecting about science.

it's literally pointless to introduce one.

[neutral]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As I said earlier, I'll go with the illogical Creator rather than the illogical scientific, 'out of nothing' explanation. </div></div>

But there's no such thing as &quot;nothing&quot; that only exist in the mind,that is a human constraint,...&quot;nothing&quot; doesnt exist,if there was no space,and no time and no physical thing,it would still be part of an evolution process in the making.

In any case,man has searched for centuries to find an answer to how we started,.....and as a result we have two camps with two different theories,and still neither camp knows if life exist in other galaxies,.....and if there is,how did &quot;they&quot; evolve.

[neutral]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree. But no more illogical than this 'out of nothing' theory. </div></div>

close...but what you are not recognizing is that it is the same 'theory.' all you've done by introducing a creator is to add an extra step and now ignoring the logical conclusion of your model- it still logically resolves to what you are saying is your problem.

so in the face of this realization, you simply have to revert to agnosticism. there's no point in introducing a creator. you are still dealing with out of nothing.

that's why some of the predictions now being modeled deal with a permanent universe, that doesn't need creating. this is why you are limiting yourself and keeping yourself in the dark, because you have a preconception about what science is trying to do, and what conclusions it can make about the early state of the universe.

if you get what I am saying, you'll have to abandon what is not logical, and a &quot;creator&quot; is on equal footing with what you think you are rejecting about science.

it's literally pointless to introduce one. </div></div>


I understand perfectly what you are saying to derek,the problem is not whether we evolved or not,..the probem is US....we are still so imbued and conditioned,we are not able to see beyond what we have learnt and our experiences as humans,,....so we look for a logical answer,we always have to have an answer,so we chose the one that makes sense to us,which is what derek is doing.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree. But no more illogical than this 'out of nothing' theory. </div></div>

close...but what you are not recognizing is that it is the same 'theory.' </div></div> OK fine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> there's no point in introducing a creator. you are still dealing with out of nothing.</div></div>
Again, I prefer an illogical Creator than illogical scientific theory. Both are illogical.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you get what I am saying, you'll have to abandon what is not logical, and a &quot;creator&quot; is on equal footing with what you think you are rejecting about science.</div></div>
Agreed.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just substitute 'creator' for universe and you will see it immediately.</div></div>

Eh?
How they the same thing?

[andronian2]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

Evolution is based on an 'assumption' that organisms with certain similarities descended from each other.
Most of the creatures hypothesized to be 'links' are known only from bones and bone fragments.

Besides, the most outstanding feature of the fossil record is stasis.
Crocodiles, cockroaches, ginkos, ferns, coelocanth (which were known only from fossils first then turned up alive and well) all exist today essentially unchanged from their ancient forms.
There are also explosions of organisms occurring suddenly in the fossil record rather than gradually (example Pre-Cambrian explosion).

Abiogenesis is untested and untestable.
That is, even if man somehow manages to engineer a living thing from inorganic matter he would only have proved that intelligent creatures can construct life by asexual means not that blind chance can do it.
That is something we have never seen occur right here on earth despite its proven ability to support and nourish existing life.

I'd rather admit I don't know than claim my unproven hypotheses are 'fact'.
Still, the existence of a invisible (to us) creator is more plausible to me.
The creator then, would have to have always existed and be timeless.

[neutral]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just substitute 'creator' for universe and you will see it immediately.</div></div>

Eh?
How they the same thing? </div></div>

If there was &quot;nothing&quot; how would it be possible for there to be a creator......?

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">just substitute 'creator' for universe and you will see it immediately.</div></div>

Eh?
How they the same thing? </div></div>

If there was &quot;nothing&quot; how would it be possible for there to be a creator......? </div></div>

The Creator is illogical!

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evolution is based on an 'assumption' that <span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">organisms</span></span> with certain similarities descended from each other.</div></div>

But my question is, where did these organisms come from?
Did they just appear out of thin air like on Star Trek, or were they created by an (albeit) illogical Creator?

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I understand perfectly what you are saying to derek,the problem is not whether we evolved or not,..the probem is US....we are still so imbued and conditioned,we are not able to see beyond what we have learnt and our experiences as humans,,....so we look for a logical answer,we always have to have an answer,so we chose the one that makes sense to us, which is what derek is doing. </div></div>

yes man, but that is actually not logic, because given the set of current observations and measurements and falsifiable experiments etc, there are not two or three logical answers- there is only one logical answer- agnosticism. THAT is the logical answer. If you retreat to the position that there is a creator, such a position is only tenable by ignoring logic.

Derek is giving himself a stop gap- a comfort zone due to his conditioning. I mean a lot of people do that, that's natural, but not logical. logic dictates there IS an answer, and theoretical physics and cosmogenesis is where that answer is going to be hashed out, it is exactly <span style="font-style: italic">where</span> it is being hashed out right now- it has to be an answer which is discovered that jives with observations and is falsifiable.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree. But no more illogical than this 'out of nothing' theory. </div></div>

close...but what you are not recognizing is that it is the same 'theory.' </div></div> OK fine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> there's no point in introducing a creator. you are still dealing with out of nothing.</div></div>
Again, I prefer an illogical Creator than illogical scientific theory. Both are illogical.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you get what I am saying, you'll have to abandon what is not logical, and a &quot;creator&quot; is on equal footing with what you think you are rejecting about science.</div></div>
Agreed. </div></div>

well, if you truly agree, then you are not being rational.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Derek is giving himself a stop gap- a comfort zone due to his conditioning.</div></div>

Hey slow down - I'm not comfortable and I haven't been conditioned. By 'conditioned' you mean religiously, right?

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: andronian2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evolution is based on an 'assumption' that organisms with certain similarities descended from each other.
Most of the creatures hypothesized to be 'links' are known only from bones and bone fragments.
</div></div>

not accurate. evolution is based on falsifiable data, observations, and converging streams of independent inquiry. if evolution were not correct, several major advances and technologies would not work. They do work, because of evolution being proven.

also, it is no longer true that 'links' are only known from bones and fossils. Genetics proves evolution. For example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Abiogenesis is untested and untestable.
That is, even if man somehow manages to engineer a living thing from inorganic matter he would only have proved that intelligent creatures can construct life by asexual means not that blind chance can do it.
That is something we have never seen occur right here on earth despite its proven ability to support and nourish existing life.
</div></div>

But it is indeed testable, and falsifiable. There are experiments going on today which show exactly that life *could* have formed randomly. Blind chance can indeed produce life, hypothetically.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'd rather admit I don't know than claim my unproven hypotheses are 'fact'.
Still, the existence of a invisible (to us) creator is more plausible to me.
The creator then, would have to have always existed and be timeless. </div></div>

the universe then, would have always existed and is timeless.

works the same way.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Derek is giving himself a stop gap- a comfort zone due to his conditioning.</div></div>

Hey slow down - I'm not comfortable and I haven't been conditioned. By 'conditioned' you mean religiously, right? </div></div>

no...not at all...but religious conditioning is very much the same in nature as to what is happening here. because religion is not based on rational, critical thinking. what I mean is, simply, you have taken the problem to it's logical conclusion, but you don't really accept that conclusion, so you go back to a premise of there having to be a creator.

That is because for whatever reason, you are conditioned by what you have read and not understanding or fully absorbing some of it in such a way as to lead you to not 'agree' with evolution or scientific findings which logically point elsewhere as to the condition of the universe than saying it was created by something out of nothing.

If you were not so conditioned, you would simply state that it's not possible to know if there was a creator or a creation to the universe, and you would have to stop there until more information could be discovered- presently the idea of there being a creator can't be falsified directly- but we would expect for there to be signs and evidence for such a being, and those things can be falsified and mostly have been.

And that is the current situation. For some reason, it makes you more comfortable to consider that everything got it's start from a creator, even though that statement is just as problematic, if not moreso, than what you think you are rejecting.

You're actually not rejecting so much as ignoring your own conclusion, for whatever reason.

[Derek]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

I could argue that you are just as conditioned to accept anything laid down as scientific - even when gaping holes appear.