I don't see the need to capitalize every letter of "theory" as if that somehow detracts from the predictions it has made and the sheer number of things it explains. However, it's absolutely true that evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. The theory that deals with the first appearance of life is known as abiogenesis, and this has nothing to do with evolution. Once we have that first organism, we have life that can and did proceed to evolve over time. Naturalistic evolution completely removes the necessity of there being a god involved in the process altogether. Some people believe in theistic evolution where they believe a god played a role in guiding it to wherever he wanted it to go, but that just adds complexity to the theory while providing no additional explanatory power.

I only mentioned big numbers because you did it first. The 757 argument is a common Creationist argument and it only would matter if this were the only planet in existence. Because there is an uncountably large number of planets where this "experiment" can take place and billions of years for it to happen, it is practically a certainty that it would happen sooner or later on at least one of the planets. There's no need to invoke the Divine to explain that.

As for abiogenesis, I don't think there's anything about lightning striking primordial ooze. If I recall correctly, the leading theory is that life formed at the bottom of the ocean near vents in the crust, so that heat from the earth's core was the primary energy source. But don't quote me on that; I haven't looked into abiogenesis in a while.

You want a breakdown on why Pascal's Wager fails so miserably? First of all, it creates a false dichotomy by saying either you believe in God or you believe in nothing, thereby ignoring every other belief system in existence, many of which have different heavens and hells and different requirements to get into them. Belief in one religion almost necessitates that you're going to hell in one or all of the other religions. Secondly, t also presumes that if you believe and you're wrong, you have nothing to lose. This is incorrect, since if you're wrong then you have wasted a substantial portion of your one and only life worshiping and praying to a false god, as well as donating money that could have been better spent elsewhere to the church. Lastly, if you're choosing to believe based on a wager, then that's not true belief. That's just hedging your bets, and an omnipotent God would know that you didn't really believe with your heart, so you'd be in the same pit with the other non-believers.

What I said in my previous closing statement isn't wrong. There is no scientific evidence for Creationism. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all. It's an untestable hypothesis that relies on the existence of another untestable hypothesis (a god's existence).

Why do you See Capitolizing every letter as an attempt to detract from Evolutions predictions. That appears to be a desperate attempt to refute a position that was never declared. I'm pretty sure I stated my opinon that evolution theory is the way science should be done. Capitolizing every letter is merely to emphasis that it is not Fact, but "Theory" (instead of using quotation marks as I just did there). To restate my position"I agree that Evolutionary THEORY doesn't remove the possibilty of creation, but it does not make it unnecessary".

But Back to the point of Evolution as an explain all. OK, abiogenisis - Basic problem there is "Regarding monomer accumulation
The "soup" theory relies on the assumption proposed by Darwin that in an environment with no pre-existing life, organic molecules may have accumulated and provided an environment for chemical evolution.

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms)."

Stepping away from the big words and deep concepts that laymen such as myself can't fully grasp on a JSP blog alone, the point I was making was even if you want to go with one of the many theories of first life being formed biologicaly (aka abiogenesis) one of which is the Ocean Vent concept, it now has to evolve to a more complex form (like a single celled organism), and that is just unbelievable (To Me). Unless of course you go with the faith that DNA and RNA (themselves way more complex than my 757 suggestion) just popped up from no-where. Come on, which "Leap-of-Faith" should I make here, the primordial ooze, no point existence one? Not me thanks. But I am not denying you that avenue, feel free. But please do not State this theory as the only possible Fact "we have life that can and did proceed to evolve".

The 757 Parts dropped varient may be a very common point made by Creationists for a good reason........ It is laughable to believe it could happen. Even by conjuring up huge probabilities like adding the uncountable billions of galaxies with the likely uncountable billions of planets is just like I previously said, toss in alot of big number to baffle into acceptance. I don't doubt that there are other planets in the universe with life on them, why wouldn't there be? But just as String Theory posits the idea that every probable outcome at the quantum level occurs in in infinate number of other universes existing in the same space as our own in other unobservable dimentions, this is impossibly untestable. This is why so many Scientist oppose String Theory (which I think is pretty awesome in concept), because it " just adds complexity to the theory while providing no additional explanatory power". Alright I added your quote there, and it's not exactly their point, but pretty damn close. The Scientifc Arguement is more like that String Theory becomes like a Religion, impossible to test or observe.

And I poked fun at your closing statement not for it's inaccuracy, but the point made that you doubted the information i linked has anything that evolution truly can't explain. Even if it does....... Intellegent Design is still wrong (i'm ad-libing of course). I mean come on, where did I say my position was by default right if I say your position has some holes in it? Why do you Seem to Automaticly argue against Creationist Theory and Christianity (in your previous post) in a reply to me, when I have mentioned niether of them as part of my point?

I'm going with the "Our Life has a purpose" Leap

This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 2 2011 06:11pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Read this, then read it again, and if you still don't understand then read it a third time.

This post was edited by Nihlathak on Jul 2 2011 08:13pm

Congrats, Laurance Moran wrote his opinion and stated (amongst other things) the following:

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

How many times should I read that? Where exactly does it differ from what I have said, "I agree that Evolutionary THEORY doesn't remove the possibilty of creation, but it does not make it unnecessary. As with all Science, Evolutionary Theory uses science on faith. We posit a theory, and until it's disproven, we have faith that it's true. If the mathematics work out, then it's true. Until it's proven to be untrue... That is how Science should be, explainable by natural proccesses by our best knowledge at the time.

Be it Religion or Science, you have to take a leap of faith either way. Granted Science is built on Man's best knowledge at the time and that kind of faith is easy for most. I certainly don't endorse you blindly selling off all belongings and following the first religious group that comes along. I only mean to suggest keeping an open mind and each of us reasoning your own opinions after giving your own concideration (hopefully not overnight).

But Holy Shit, Larry Moran wrote an article.....guess we can put this age old dispute to bed forever now. Thanks

Now lets concider this for a nano second. You have the Power to will a Giant Redwood Tree into Existence from nothing. You do just that, "Poof" a Full Grown Giant Redwood appears at your beckoning. (hypotheticly of course since it is not likely that you could do this). As you gaze on the Creation that you have manifested, a Dendrologist comes along and examines the tree. What conculsion is he going to come to? He won't be wrong in his conculsions......

So read my opinion again, maybe a second or even a third time if needed:If you want to go with one of the many theories of first life being formed biologicaly (aka abiogenesis) one of which is the Ocean Vent concept, it now has to evolve to a more complex form (like a single celled organism), and that is just unbelievable (To Me). Unless of course you go with the faith that DNA and RNA (themselves way more complex than my 757 suggestion) just popped up from no-where. Come on, which "Leap-of-Faith" should I make here, the primordial ooze, no point existence one? Not me thanks. But I am not denying you that avenue, feel free

Knock yourself out with your belief in a No-point existence, I wish you well......

This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 2 2011 09:21pm

Are you seriously asking me where it differs from what you said when the second quote is in complete contradiction with it?

This post was edited by Nihlathak on Jul 2 2011 09:20pm

Dude Just Cause Larry Says its Fact dont make it fact....

http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/moran/bch.html

This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 2 2011 09:28pm

As with any fact, the amount of evidence that's necessary to "prove" it is arbitrary. If I say that a table that's in front of me "exists" and you say that there isn't enough proof because you're in the matrix world, there's nothing more I can say.

Likewise, if you're saying that the entirety of the scientific community that dedicates their life to such matters and their peer review process is inferior to some random made-up idea (i.e. that macro evolution doesn't exist), then there's nothing more I can say. I'm done here.



And showing he got his Ph.D in evolutionary theory and related topics from one of the top Ivy league schools (Princeton) says what to help you exactly?

This post was edited by Nihlathak on Jul 2 2011 09:35pm

A little huffy aren't you? I have said from the beggining that the idea of Evolution is sound scientificly, but it does not eliminate intellegent Design. Where did anyone say macro evolution doesn't exist? or dismissed Scientific work as inferior? Those statements of yours are made-up or at best inadequate speculation on your part. However, there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. If you want to take your ball and go home, thats fine.

And as far as my posting a link to Professor Moran, it provides the information about who he is for others in the thread, why do you think I posted it? I was not looking for any help, merely providing information.

Yeah, it sucks when only 14.2% of the worlds population has a clue huh? thanks for trying to help the rest of us poor shlubs

Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is no easy task. According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world's population are atheists, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious - Wikipedia

This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 2 2011 10:02pm

Yes, but you're misunderstanding the word theory which is another thing that Creationists do (though usually not on purpose just because they don't know any better). In a scientific sense, a theory is more than just some guess at what things might be like. First ideas start off as hypotheses and then after passing rigorous tests and making predictions based on available evidence, they start to be called a theory. Scientific theories are far more powerful than the colloquial definition of "theory" would imply.


Sounds like you mentally could not accept a universe without a creator, aka a "no point existence." Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not in any way retract from its validity.


And how is that different from tossing out this random analogy of a 757 using huge probabilities to baffle into denial? (Hint: it's not. It's turning that argument against you.)


You're bringing up Creationist arguments. That's why I'm arguing against them in replies to you, so that should have been pretty obvious. And as to why I would doubt that that link actually has evidence against evolution? Simple. If there were as much evidence as that link implies, the theory of evolution would have been reworked or scrapped entirely long, long ago, because that's just how science works. Without looking in depth into it I have reason to believe it's just Creationist garbage put out there so that layman can can feel justified in believing it.


That's a misrepresentation of reality. Scientists don't simply take evolution or ANY science on faith. In order to get scholarly works published in ANY journal, they go through a rigorous process of peer review and editing. Most articles get rejected and require rewriting on their first couple attempts because they're not up to the standards set by the journal (either formatting is wrong or the Methods/Data/Analysis sections are insufficient to help someone reproduce the experiment to try to verify or falsify the findings). After an article is published, other groups often repeat the experiments and see if they can obtain the same results. If the experiment is not repeatable, the journal issues a retraction and the people that submitted the article lose credibility. Because of this process, scientists don't need to have faith in order to understand the things they do. You're only trying to equate science with religion because you're uncomfortable with the fact that religion necessarily relies on faith alone, so you're trying to drag the scientific process down to religion's level.

Edit

Lack of a sufficient scientific explanation for the origin of life and for what caused the Big Bang are the two single biggest gaps left in scientific knowledge that give people a basis for believing in a god. There's a reason that deities are sometimes known as Gods of the Gaps. Every time science figures something out, it makes a deity's existence less necessary than it was the day before.


I believe I said this before, but it bears repeating. Evolution is not a theory about religion. Plenty of religious people accept evolution as fact. Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution happened. However, religious people that will acknowledge evolutionary theory like to tack in divine intervention. This variant is known as Theistic Evolution.

The "poor shlubs" are the ones who do not acknowledge any type of evolution. They're the modern day equivalent of Flat Earth proponents.

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on Jul 2 2011 10:18pm

I do not misunderstand Scientific Theory, but of course you need to try and insult anyone you label as Creationist of not having your superior mental abilities. That is a common tactic of the Arrogant Athiest, not content to revel in your belief unless you howl your indignation loudly, bolstering your own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God. It is this rigid attitude that unites fundamentalist atheists with their religious cousins in that fundamentalist atheists are not content to revel in their own perfect worldview, but rather they must also prove others wrong in order for them to be right. It is this intellectual elitism that religious believers see when they glance behind them at those atheists who nip at their heels.

I Concider Evolution from the origins of life a theory because it is untestable and unobservable, but it is our best guess of life through natural processes. And I don't deny you your right to your belief, go for it enjoy the ride.

"Sounds like you mentally could not accept a universe without a creator, aka a "no point existence." Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not in any way retract from its validity"

Here we go again, inflate your superiority by suggesting lack of intellegence of anyone who Belives in God. And the Idea that Religious belief is out of fear (aka "uncomfortable") is another trash opinion from Athiests who reverse thier own fear feelings

Scientists who believe in God are in good company: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein..... you might have heard of a few of them? Why not point out how they mentaly couldn't accept the universe without a creator (or is it just that they didn't know any better?).

And Science absolutly takes things on Faith. Now it is you who misunderstands the word faith as only applying to your understanding of it. The Faith of Science is that our understanding is correct until it is proven wrong. And Science is totaly comfortable with being proven wrong when it happens, that is what Science is all about. It is not Faith just tossed up in the air, it is absolutly based on reasonable hypothosis, and differs from Religious Faith in that way. But when Information is presented to you to refute you Very First Claims of this post, you Decide "not to look in depth into it and just to believe it's just Creationist garbage". Now how is that Scientific?

"I only mentioned big numbers because you did it first. The 757 argument is a common Creationist argument and it only would matter if this were the only planet in existence....... this random analogy of a 757 using huge probabilities to baffle into denial?"

Sorry that the 757 random analogy comes across as baffling to you (and only matters if this is the only planet in existence??!!? WTF??) It is not an attempt to baffle, it is a example of the simplicty of why Mathmatical probability does not mean it would actualy happen in every instance. Just like Many Physicist Do not like String Theory because it also Uses the "Every probable outcome occurs in an infinate number of alternate universes" idea. Even Main Stream Science is not happy with the untestable hypothothis that String Theory leads to. But it's OK for Origins of Life and Evolution to cells and from there on..... Equally untestable, albiet the best hypothosis for natural creation. But At least you recognize that lack of scientific explanation for the origins of life. For this I thank you.

"I believe I said this before, but it bears repeating. Evolution is not a theory about religion" - I missed where you said this before or it was even implied by anyone in this thread. Evolution has nothing to do with Religion and Religion has nothing to do with Evolution theory. Things Evolve, Natural Selection occurs, who is denying this? And Why are you Bringing up Flat Earth? In the 2nd century BC, Crates of Mallus devised a terrestrial sphere, by the 1st century AD, Pliny the Elder was in a position to claim that everyone agrees on the spherical shape of Earth. Are you going to harp on The misconception that educated people at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief?

Come on, Really

p.s. You Started this Thread to high five yourself and troll some responses. Great Success !!





This post was edited by FullArcFG on Jul 3 2011 07:32am