PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution?




Pages : [1] 2 3

Chadd Murray
12-17-2007, 11:05 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?

Andrew-Austin
12-17-2007, 11:08 PM
Its not like evolution is some perfectly panned out idea, it does have gaps, albeit minor ones.

Scientists who really believe in evolution still call it a 'theory', just for the sake of it I guess.

Who cares either way.

Jon S
12-17-2007, 11:10 PM
i think he doesn't accept that it is a fact. he is saying that he does not know how things happened nor does he believe that anyone truely does due to the fact that there are good arguments on both sides of the table

0zzy
12-17-2007, 11:11 PM
He believes God created the Heavens and Earth, and evolution took place after that. I believe, he believes BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

Swmorgan77
12-17-2007, 11:38 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?

Just because he rejects evolution (or macro-evolution) as the origin of life does not necessarily mean he ascribes to creationism.

I believe that micro-evolution exists, but that's very different from accepting evolution as the explanatory thesis for the origin of life.

I also, however, reject "Creationism" as most commonly believed because it is a theory of an instantaneous, all-encompassing creation out of nothing which does not conform to either science or the scriptures.

Swmorgan77
12-17-2007, 11:39 PM
Its not like evolution is some perfectly panned out idea, it does have gaps, albeit minor ones.

Scientists who really believe in evolution still call it a 'theory', just for the sake of it I guess.

Who cares either way.

Actually, it has major gaps. Namely EVERY intermediate species you would expect to find in the fossil record if evolution were true. And when are we going to have an experiment that demonstrates a mutation can result in a new species capable of reproduction? This supposedly was a major force behind evolution and we can't even reproduce it in a controlled experiment?

Fox McCloud
12-17-2007, 11:43 PM
you guys are looking at this in the wrong light. You guys should play up his creationist side as much as possible. Why?

Simple! The Christian right will absolutely love it. The more and more we can portray this man as a Christian, and holding Christian beliefs, the more and more they'll be likely to vote for him (especially if they start finding a lot of dirt on Huckabee).

don't look at this in a bad light, look at it in a good light.

literatim
12-17-2007, 11:45 PM
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

Much more than 'minor' gaps.

PaleoForPaul
12-17-2007, 11:49 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it.

Evolution is a theory.


Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.


I'm more worried about people forcing evolution on me, and I don't even go to church. It seems like those that dislike Christianity have taken Evolution as their bible. It's pretty scary actually, by disliking fundamentalists they end up becoming like them.

DamianTV
12-18-2007, 01:29 AM
Evolution or not, we are still in the same boat. A boat that is sinking unless we focus on the problems of why we are sinking, not evolution.

FrankRep
12-18-2007, 01:38 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?

We have opinions. None of us will agree on everything. He won't force his opinion on you if that is what you are worried about.

hard@work
12-18-2007, 01:39 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?


What's unnerving about having a Christian belief if it's backed up by a strong belief in the U.S. constitution? Actually, shouldn't that be settling if anything? The idea that Christianity in the U.S. can move away from the desire to legislate virtue as it's no longer under attack allowing those with other religious or moderate religious views to feel no need to attack?

Sounds like a winner to me!

Tolerance is a Christian virtue, and the founders were very proficient Christian scholars and students of science and philosophy.

Richandler
12-18-2007, 01:47 AM
There are also major gaps in this: http://www.brain-fun.com/Brain-Teasers/EinsteinsRiddle.php

That doesn't mean that the answer isn't true.

I cite dogs again for evolution. We have watched them evolve before our eyes into different breeds that we created. It's not really complicated and there are no gaps. That is on a scale of about 1000 years that we have created poodles and dobermans. They trace back to ancient relatives and look nothing alike besides basic shape. It's an example of where evolution wasn't as random as it is in nature. Now, go back 100 million years at the least. That's that is 100,000x more time for all of natures species to evolve from already land dwelling mammals.

hard@work
12-18-2007, 01:54 AM
There are also major gaps in this: http://www.brain-fun.com/Brain-Teasers/EinsteinsRiddle.php

That doesn't mean that the answer isn't true.

I cite dogs again for evolution. We have watched them evolve before our eyes into different breeds that we created. It's not really complicated and there are no gaps. That is on a scale of about 1000 years that we have created poodles and dobermans. They trace back to ancient relatives and look nothing alike besides basic shape. It's an example of where evolution wasn't as random as it is in nature. Now, go back 100 million years at the least. That's that is 100,000x more time for all of natures species to evolve from already land dwelling mammals.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh but how does this effect whether or not Ron Paul's political philosophy will be beneficial for me or not?

It doesn't.

It's simple: there are those that would like religion to be an issue for those uncomfortable with the "religious right". Ron Paul is a Christian, a devout and faithful one. But he has a philosophy very similar to the Christianity of our founding fathers. And a political philosophy nearly identical to them as well.

Read what they had to say about religion and politics. It's beautiful work.

RP2008
12-18-2007, 03:03 AM
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

Much more than 'minor' gaps.


There are also major gaps between Ron Paul's fundraising numbers and Mike Huckabee's and I am hoping it stays that way.

Guys I don't think now is the time to be getting into a divisive debate on an irrelavent issue. I disagree with Ron Paul on a number of issues. It bothers me but I focus on what is important. For me it is a desire to limit the power of the state.

Just the other day I was in a discussion in one of the classes I am taking and I mentioned the erosion of limits on the prevention of search and seizure. What I was asked offended me and scared me. What do I have to hide? Well I'll tell you what I said then. I am fairly certain it is the same thing Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had to hide.

The last thing we need to be doing is dividing such a noble movement, we are closing in on 20 million dollars for the quater. The media talks about John Mccain getting 1 endorsement on sunday...Ron Paul's message got somewhere around 60,000 endorsements that same day.

Lets stop talking about evolution and keep talking about The Constitution.

anotherone
12-18-2007, 03:39 AM
Hey Chadd,

This is the 2nd time you've started a Troll topic.

The first one was how we should support Dodd because we're anti MSM.

Now this garbage.


Get a life dude, and go hang out with you Giuliani friends.

Goeran
12-18-2007, 04:03 AM
Many would like to just ignore Ron Pauls comment on evolution, but this is going to destroy his internet support really fast if he doesn't explain his remarks soon.

Just look at the comments on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q)- many people are VERY disappointed about this "I reject the theory of evolution"-comment (including me!).

Discussion on Reddit:
Reddit - Ron Paul Evolution (http://politics.reddit.com/info/636es/comments/)

Ron Paul's statement is out there and his enemies are going to quote him anyway - if we like it or not. If Ron Paul wants to attract (or keep the support of) scholars, students, techies and scientists, he better prepares a good explanation for this statement.

Just a warning: If Bill Maher, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert &Co. are back, they are going to kill (!) campaigns that look like being from the 16th century! Ron Paul should better be aware of this fact.

Watch this: Mike Huckabee denies evolution on the Bill Maher Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXajXz4DF1w)

Corydoras
12-18-2007, 04:03 AM
Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?

He mentioned this in the Spartanburg video, didn't you hear that?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

I have no idea how he reconciles it, and I have always viewed him as a statesman rather than a saint. But I say, Ron Paul wants to defend us from the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and HIPAA, and I don't care if he does so because he thinks God created us in God's image specifically per a literal reading of the Bible. The bozos running against Ron Paul aren't worried about little things like our rights, whereas he cares passionately about them.

susano
12-18-2007, 04:12 AM
Evolution is a theory.



I'm more worried about people forcing evolution on me, and I don't even go to church. It seems like those that dislike Christianity have taken Evolution as their bible. It's pretty scary actually, by disliking fundamentalists they end up becoming like them.


BINGO.

Do people here not know that the NWO is Darwinian secular humanist? There is no soul, no unalienable right to freedom. The state is supreme, is "god".

Evolution is a THEORY that has never been proved because it's not correct. Physically, life forms may evolve, adapt and change, but LIFE cannot be explained.

susano
12-18-2007, 04:15 AM
Many would like to just ignore Ron Pauls comment on evolution, but this is going to destroy his internet support really fast if he doesn't explain his remarks soon.



You're full of shit, troll.

Read the Declaration of Independence - EVER?

I thought not.

Corydoras
12-18-2007, 04:18 AM
If Ron Paul wants to attract (or keep the support of) scholars, students, techies and scientists, he better prepares a good explanation for this statement.

Nah... his opposition to net neutrality, federal student loans and grants, and the FDA hasn't destroyed his support.

noztnac
12-18-2007, 04:22 AM
Creationism or Darwinism is a false dichotomy. There is the option of creationism and evolution.

noztnac
12-18-2007, 04:28 AM
He's a doctor and a graduate of Duke University. He knows a lot more about evolution, its many implications, etc. than 95% of us.

He probably does not accept it as the be all end all, all encompassing explanation of everything.

idiom
12-18-2007, 04:54 AM
Go look up Punctuated Equilibrium. The current working theory of evolution is not Darwins Theory.

On the other hand, creationism is no longer a hypothesis. People use it as a conclusion rather than as Kepler and Mendel did to direct their exploration. Current Creationism is useless to science because nobody is using it to predict stuff.

Evolution keeps getting things wrong, but the biologists pick themselves up make a new theory and go look where it leads them.

A theory is only useful if it leads you to new ideas and evidence. Whether that evidence is for or against the orignal theory doesn't matter because we have learnt something new.

For example: If God is so creative and cold fusion is theoretically possible then a bacteria or something somewhere is probably using it to get by. Possibly out in space to get by on specks of hydrogen...

Cinci4RP
12-18-2007, 05:39 AM
Why does it always come down to Creationism vs. Evolutionism? They are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If one reads the original Hebrew text, it can be interpreted as day or age or era or time. I am a Christian, but I am also very much a naturalist. How is it so hard for people to believe both. In my own personal view, when YHWH breathed life into Adam, that was the implementation of the soul. Anyway sorry for the rant, but, I have this conversation at least once a month.

Remember, NOT MUTAULLY EXCLUSIVE.

God Created Evolution.

Cinci4RP
12-18-2007, 05:41 AM
Creationism or Darwinism is a false dichotomy

+1 See Rant

bobmurph
12-18-2007, 05:54 AM
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

When discussing evolution everyone throws around out the "it's only a theory" argument. Guess what...there are tons of "theories" that are generally accpeted as scientific fact...for example Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitaiton...gravity...it's as good as fact. Evolution is the same.

bobmurph
12-18-2007, 05:55 AM
BTW, Chadd is a fucking troll.

Copernicus
12-18-2007, 06:18 AM
There is compelling evidence of genetic tinkering
with **** sapiens millions of years ago. This planet has a very long and interesting history that I'm sure would raise a few conservative eyebrows.
Look into forbidden archaeology sometime.
That being said, we all know Ron isn't a bible thumper and we
shouldn't be worried about such trivial matters as belief in evolution.
What matters is NOW!

JohnM
12-18-2007, 08:58 AM
When John McCain was asked, the question was "Do you believe in evolution?" A one word answer was demanded.

Dr Paul was asked "Do you believe the theory of evolution to be true."

These are actually two different questions. People with extreme views on both sides of the argument may not like to admit it, but the whole issue is pretty complex. One can believe in evolution without believing in "the theory of evolution" (And which theory of evolution would that be, anyway?)

Asking for a one word answer to the question is asking for gross oversimplification.

But more importantly, isn't it really dumb to ask presidential candidates to give a detailed statement of what they believe on a complex scientific issue?

tyler477
12-18-2007, 09:00 AM
he is a christian, of course he doesn't accept evolution..... but what he does accept is a separation of church and state
so end this conversation and stop your trolling commie

peruvianRP
12-18-2007, 09:19 AM
Perfect answer....

"nobody is certain of either side" or something in that quote.

FluffyUnbound
12-18-2007, 11:47 AM
This is truly disturbing to me.

Paul at one of the first debates specifically did not raise his hand as someone who did not accept evolution.

I've been bashing Huckabee up and down the web as unqualified because of his mealy-mouthed "I don't know; I wasn't there" intellectually dishonest answer.

The Paul campaign has emailed people affirming that Paul accepts evolution.

Where the heck is this comment in Spartanburg coming from?

It almost sounds like he tailored his answer here to pander to the questioner, and that's not what Ron is supposed to be about.

Fox McCloud
12-18-2007, 12:46 PM
his campaign is probably just assuming his views on evolution; often times people will do this for something that's broadly thought to be accepted.

Ron alluded to not answering this at the debate (amongst other things at future debates) because he felt that, as President, it wasn't his decision to decide one way or another; it'd be incriminating himself if he said "yes" or "no" to either one; to him it's a personal matter (and clearly, he accepts Creationism over evolution).

He's not pandering to crowds; he's merely stating what he personally believes and why he answered the way he did at the debates.

Mesogen
12-18-2007, 01:57 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q

The second question he's asked in that video is on Evolution. He says it's 'a theory' and he doesn't accept it. Bit un-nerving, of course his political positions are the most important thing, I doubt he'll be forcing creationism on us... but it is interesting.

Wondering if there are any videos/evidence which runs contrary to this for Paul?
Yeah, there is video evidence of Paul, in effect, saying the opposite.

It's the question from one of the first debates where all candidates were asked to raise their hand if they did not believe in evolution and Paul did not raise his hand.


Actually, it has major gaps. Namely EVERY intermediate species you would expect to find in the fossil record if evolution were true.

You do realize that fossilization is an extremely rare occurence, don't you? There simply will not be a representative fossil for each and every species that ever lived on Earth. We are lucky to get the ones we do.


And when are we going to have an experiment that demonstrates a mutation can result in a new species capable of reproduction? This supposedly was a major force behind evolution and we can't even reproduce it in a controlled experiment?One mutation will not cause speciation. It takes many many mutations over a long long span of time. What you ask for is impossible. That does not mean that speciation is not observable or deducible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


you guys are looking at this in the wrong light. You guys should play up his creationist side as much as possible. Why?

Simple! The Christian right will absolutely love it. The more and more we can portray this man as a Christian, and holding Christian beliefs, the more and more they'll be likely to vote for him (especially if they start finding a lot of dirt on Huckabee).

don't look at this in a bad light, look at it in a good light.

Pandering, IMO, is a form of lying.

I don't like it when any politician does it.

nist7
12-18-2007, 01:59 PM
He believes God created the Heavens and Earth, and evolution took place after that. I believe, he believes BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

...aka intelligent design. Which is what I believe IF there is a supreme being. I'm more of an agnostic.

Mesogen
12-18-2007, 02:09 PM
There is compelling evidence of genetic tinkering
with **** sapiens millions of years ago.

You mean "tinkering" by an intelligen agent?

I've got to see this evidence. Please link me.

nist7
12-18-2007, 02:13 PM
You mean "tinkering" by an intelligen agent?

I've got to see this evidence. Please link me.

Intelligent design, which is a perfectly acceptable explanation....for those who believe in a God. However, trying to teach intelligent design in schools as science is idiotic. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief of intelligent design, as long as it stays out of the schools.

voytechs
12-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Ok, I listened to the question. It wasn't what I thought it would be, like Huckster's theory that world was created by God 6,000 years ago. He answers it that we don't know how God created the universe going back to big bang. This is exactly my belief, because I'm a Christian, God created the world, but I think he created by setting certain things in motion, like the big bang. Science has no clue what was there before big bang. I believe in God, he had to have his hand into it at some point, exactly when is unknown. What is known its not 6,000 years ago.

nist7
12-18-2007, 02:21 PM
Ok, I listened to the question. It wasn't what I thought it would be, like Huckster's theory that world was created by God 6,000 years ago. He answers it that we don't know how God created the universe going back to big bang. This is exactly my belief, because I'm a Christian, God created the world, but I think he created by setting certain things in motion, like the big bang. Science has no clue what was there before big bang. I believe in God, he had to have his hand into it at some point, exactly when is unknown. What is known its not 6,000 years ago.

Intelligent design.

There is nothing wrong with believing in intelligent design....in fact it is probably the best explanation for "science" for those who do believe in a God.

CelestialRender
12-18-2007, 02:27 PM
I'm an Atheist, and absolutely sure Evolution is a correct theory.

BUT I AGREE WITH DR PAUL that this is not a valid question to ask a Presidential candidate, and is completely irrelevant to his politics.

It's that simple. I don't care what he believes in science, ethics, music, theater, books, proper tooth-brushing method, or how people should do their hair.

I only care how he would lead this nation. And he would undeniably be the greatest president since Thomas Jefferson.

Mesogen
12-18-2007, 02:31 PM
There are also major gaps in this: http://www.brain-fun.com/Brain-Teasers/EinsteinsRiddle.php

That doesn't mean that the answer isn't true.

I cite dogs again for evolution. We have watched them evolve before our eyes into different breeds that we created. It's not really complicated and there are no gaps. That is on a scale of about 1000 years that we have created poodles and dobermans. They trace back to ancient relatives and look nothing alike besides basic shape. It's an example of where evolution wasn't as random as it is in nature. Now, go back 100 million years at the least. That's that is 100,000x more time for all of natures species to evolve from already land dwelling mammals.

Most creationists will grant you this, but they will bring up the fact that all domestic dogs are the same species and that they haven't evolved into a new species.

But we can bring up lab rabbits and wild rabbits. They can no longer successfully breed. I do believe that counts as speciation. But then the creationists will say that this was done through an intelligent agent, namely humans, so it doesn't count, even though, no human was trying for any new species.

You could keep it up and show them the species of Chlorella Vulgaris that went from single celled to a multicelled colony in response to predation, which is an example of AT LEAST speciation being observed in a controlled experiment. Look up "Coloniality in Chlorella Vulgaris" Boraas 1983.

Mesogen
12-18-2007, 02:32 PM
Intelligent design, which is a perfectly acceptable explanation....for those who believe in a God. However, trying to teach intelligent design in schools as science is idiotic. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief of intelligent design, as long as it stays out of the schools.

I asked the otther person for evidence of intelligent design since they said there was such a thing. There isn't.

nist7
12-18-2007, 02:40 PM
I asked the otther person for evidence of intelligent design since they said there was such a thing. There isn't.

True. A lot of people get confused and try to make intelligent design as "scientific." It is not. I agree with you there.

Scientifically there is ZERO evidence for intelligent design....because intelligent design is NOT science. It is a religious explanation. But using science to discredit religion makes as much sense as using religion to discredit science.

GunnyFreedom
12-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Intelligent design, which is a perfectly acceptable explanation....for those who believe in a God. However, trying to teach intelligent design in schools as science is idiotic. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief of intelligent design, as long as it stays out of the schools.

I guess this begs the question as to which schools you would be talking about. Keeping it out of Government-funded public schools? sure. But if some poor kid's parents want to send their children to a private school where they teach that invisible green monkeys created and now guide the human race, well, that's none of our damn business.

And, to make sure all things are equal, the amount of per-capita federal funding provided to the students of public schools, should likewise be provided to those who opt out of the public system -- WITHOUT any sort of restrictions about what sort of schools those parents are or are not allowed to send their kids to "if they want those vouchers."

Of course, I believe that the Fed should opt out of schooling altogether, which in the end means those fundings and vouchers would be "zero," but so long as the Fed pays in, say, $2000/year per capita to public school, and Mr and Mrs Smith opt out of the Public system, then that $2000 needs to be taken FROM that district and given to Mr and Mrs Smith in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for schooling, EVEN if they choose to use those vouchers to send their kids to a school that teaches the above-mentioned green monkeys.

Equal treatment or no treatment. Period. If the school is established by Gov't, then sure, it makes sense to avoid any and all topics regarding religion. But you can't dictate to a PRIVATE school what they can and can not teach, AND, so long as you are going to fund Sammy Jones to the tune of $2000 a year for public school, then all things being equal you need to provide Bobby Smith $2000 a year also to go to the school he wants.

MIND YOU, I think federal spending on this should be ZERO. But if you MUST spend, then you can't subsidize only the ones that teach what you like -- or you suffer the danger of making a federal requirement saying "Funding will be provided only to schools which teach that George Bush and Hillary Clinton are god and goddess" and thus you have fascist indoctrinary propaganda.

nist7
12-18-2007, 04:17 PM
I guess this begs the question as to which schools you would be talking about. Keeping it out of Government-funded public schools? sure. But if some poor kid's parents want to send their children to a private school where they teach that invisible green monkeys created and now guide the human race, well, that's none of our damn business.

And, to make sure all things are equal, the amount of per-capita federal funding provided to the students of public schools, should likewise be provided to those who opt out of the public system -- WITHOUT any sort of restrictions about what sort of schools those parents are or are not allowed to send their kids to "if they want those vouchers."

Of course, I believe that the Fed should opt out of schooling altogether, which in the end means those fundings and vouchers would be "zero," but so long as the Fed pays in, say, $2000/year per capita to public school, and Mr and Mrs Smith opt out of the Public system, then that $2000 needs to be taken FROM that district and given to Mr and Mrs Smith in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for schooling, EVEN if they choose to use those vouchers to send their kids to a school that teaches the above-mentioned green monkeys.

Equal treatment or no treatment. Period. If the school is established by Gov't, then sure, it makes sense to avoid any and all topics regarding religion. But you can't dictate to a PRIVATE school what they can and can not teach, AND, so long as you are going to fund Sammy Jones to the tune of $2000 a year for public school, then all things being equal you need to provide Bobby Smith $2000 a year also to go to the school he wants.

MIND YOU, I think federal spending on this should be ZERO. But if you MUST spend, then you can't subsidize only the ones that teach what you like -- or you suffer the danger of making a federal requirement saying "Funding will be provided only to schools which teach that George Bush and Hillary Clinton are god and goddess" and thus you have fascist indoctrinary propaganda.

Agreed. :)

GunnyFreedom
12-18-2007, 04:25 PM
Agreed. :)

Haha WONDERFUL! The message of Freedom MUST be powerful -- where else will you find strict-interpretists atheists and strict-interpretists Christians in...AGREEMENT?? :eek:

There's something happening here -- when a movement can attract, Jews, White Supremacists, Atheists, Christians, Americans of African heritage, Latinos, etc etc....

just... WOW. :)

Jackinbox
12-18-2007, 04:45 PM
I guess this begs the question as to which schools you would be talking about. Keeping it out of Government-funded public schools? sure. But if some poor kid's parents want to send their children to a private school where they teach that invisible green monkeys created and now guide the human race, well, that's none of our damn business.

And, to make sure all things are equal, the amount of per-capita federal funding provided to the students of public schools, should likewise be provided to those who opt out of the public system -- WITHOUT any sort of restrictions about what sort of schools those parents are or are not allowed to send their kids to "if they want those vouchers."

Of course, I believe that the Fed should opt out of schooling altogether, which in the end means those fundings and vouchers would be "zero," but so long as the Fed pays in, say, $2000/year per capita to public school, and Mr and Mrs Smith opt out of the Public system, then that $2000 needs to be taken FROM that district and given to Mr and Mrs Smith in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for schooling, EVEN if they choose to use those vouchers to send their kids to a school that teaches the above-mentioned green monkeys.

Equal treatment or no treatment. Period. If the school is established by Gov't, then sure, it makes sense to avoid any and all topics regarding religion. But you can't dictate to a PRIVATE school what they can and can not teach, AND, so long as you are going to fund Sammy Jones to the tune of $2000 a year for public school, then all things being equal you need to provide Bobby Smith $2000 a year also to go to the school he wants.

MIND YOU, I think federal spending on this should be ZERO. But if you MUST spend, then you can't subsidize only the ones that teach what you like -- or you suffer the danger of making a federal requirement saying "Funding will be provided only to schools which teach that George Bush and Hillary Clinton are god and goddess" and thus you have fascist indoctrinary propaganda.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The question is "where we draw the line?"

1. Should a private school be allowed to teach that 2+2=3 ? If their religion support the idea of 2+2=3, is it ok to let them teach that?

2. Let say that some parents don't believe in education at all or believe that 2+2=3. Should the goverment allow them to "homeschool" their children?

The creationism vs evolution debate is not about one theory vs another theory. It's about religion vs science. Currently, that where the line has been drawn.

Young_Apprentice
12-18-2007, 04:53 PM
Unfortunately, yes. In a free society a parent could choose to teach their child whatever they wished, even 2+2=3. But at the same time, employers can choose not to hire them due to their lack of skills and the rest of society has the choice to ostracize them completely due to their backwards thinking. So, in most cases at least, the free market would mostly solve the problem.

nist7
12-18-2007, 05:14 PM
Haha WONDERFUL! The message of Freedom MUST be powerful -- where else will you find strict-interpretists atheists and strict-interpretists Christians in...AGREEMENT?? :eek:

There's something happening here -- when a movement can attract, Jews, White Supremacists, Atheists, Christians, Americans of African heritage, Latinos, etc etc....

just... WOW. :)

lol.......:cool:

btw, I'm an ambivalent agnostic.

Jackinbox
12-18-2007, 06:16 PM
Unfortunately, yes. In a free society a parent could choose to teach their child whatever they wished, even 2+2=3. But at the same time, employers can choose not to hire them due to their lack of skills and the rest of society has the choice to ostracize them completely due to their backwards thinking. So, in most cases at least, the free market would mostly solve the problem.

", employers can choose not to hire them due to their lack of skills"

Are you talking about the parents? They can be highly skilled people but teach non-sense to their children. What we do with mentally-ill parents? If you are talking about the children, I consider this an high price to pay. To me, not educating your children is a form of abuse. Children are innocent creatures. There is case where they have to be protected. Free market isn't a silver bullet and wouldn't solve this kind of issue. We have to be careful to not embrace ideologies to the extreme. Goverment can be good as long as the democracy works. Then, the goverment reflect the wish of the people.

jmdrake
12-11-2014, 11:31 AM
I'm bumping this thread to counteract the silliness of the thread criticizing Jack Hunter and "rare.com" for posting a thread criticizing Bill Nye's fascist position that parents shouldn't teach their children creationism. Some idiots are worried that this will somehow hurt Rand Paul. Newsflash 1, most republicans are creationists. Newsflash 2, anyone who really believes in freedom isn't going to say parents should or should not teach creationism or evolution or socialism or capitalism or anything else. Newsflash 3, while Rand didn't write the article that has everyone in a huff, he most certainly agrees with the sentiment. I know that because Ron Paul most certainly taught Rand Paul his own religious beliefs which includes skepticism of evolution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Anyone who wouldn't vote for Ron or Rand over this deserves to live in a fascist state.

jonhowe
12-11-2014, 11:43 AM
ZOMBIE THREAAAAD!


I don't think parents should teach creationism to their kids. I don't think they should teach them about a spaghetti monster. They probably shouldn't feed them french fries or oreos, either.

That being said, anyone who tries to legislate such things as illegal is not someone I would vote for.


I'm about as "militant" as an atheist as I am as a ron paul supporter, but the idea of outlawing a religious view is absolutely abhorrent. Just don't legislate based on scripture, either, and we'll be ok.

William Tell
12-11-2014, 11:50 AM
I'm bumping this thread to counteract the silliness of the thread criticizing Jack Hunter and "rare.com" for posting a thread criticizing Bill Nye's fascist position that parents shouldn't teach their children creationism. Some idiots are worried that this will somehow hurt Rand Paul. Newsflash 1, most republicans are creationists. Newsflash 2, anyone who really believes in freedom isn't going to say parents should or should not teach creationism or evolution or socialism or capitalism or anything else. Newsflash 3, while Rand didn't write the article that has everyone in a huff, he most certainly agrees with the sentiment. I know that because Ron Paul most certainly taught Rand Paul his own religious beliefs which includes skepticism of evolution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Anyone who wouldn't vote for Ron or Rand over this deserves to live in a fascist state.

I certainly hope he agrees with his dad.

muh_roads
12-11-2014, 11:51 AM
Creationism & Evolution both have flaws. They are simply beliefs and theories.

jllundqu
12-11-2014, 12:16 PM
Holy thread ressurection, Batman!!!!

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-11-2014, 12:20 PM
Everything is a theory until it is thoroughly tested by modern science and properly reflected in "peer reviewed journals." Everything in there is subject to continual refinement, so we never really know anything for sure. Basically, everything is unknowable. The best gauge would be to try to understand what is said on the tee vee newz and food labels.

jmdrake
12-11-2014, 12:49 PM
ZOMBIE THREAAAAD!


I don't think parents should teach creationism to their kids. I don't think they should teach them about a spaghetti monster. They probably shouldn't feed them french fries or oreos, either.

That being said, anyone who tries to legislate such things as illegal is not someone I would vote for.


I'm about as "militant" as an atheist as I am as a ron paul supporter, but the idea of outlawing a religious view is absolutely abhorrent. Just don't legislate based on scripture, either, and we'll be ok.

Parents should teach their children whatever it is they truly believe. There is a whole world out their that wants to force their own ideas on kids. Bill Nye was on PBS? This is what PBS was teaching little kids.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHdHlG-qIQ

That said, I believe in using the Socratic method of asking questions t teach important truths. I never taught my kids that communism was wrong. But when I had to explain to my son what communism is (he was doing a paper on W. E. B. Dubois and Dubois became a communist later in life) he at first thought it sounded like a good idea. Then I asked him "Would you want the government to say your house is too big for one family and that other families had to be allowed to move in too, or worse you had to move out to a much smaller house?" When I put it that way, he was against it. Another son, when hearing a commercial about an upcoming anti abortion law, was at first pro choice. He was all "It's the woman's body." I asked him if he knew about Margaret Sanger, the woman who started planned parenthood, and how she wrote in a book that black people should either be convinced to have abortions en masse or be forcibly sterilized and that considering the high rates of abortion among blacks and the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are usually in black neighborhoods, the plan seems to be working. I also mentioned to him the black abortion doctor that was killing babies (mostly black) who survived the abortion and that his defense attorney argued that the killings weren't murder since it wouldn't have been murder if it had happened in the womb. To my pleasant surprise the next time the abortion issue came up on the radio he was staunchly pro life and I had never said anything about what God thinks about abortion or that abortion is wrong or immoral or whatever.

As for creation, I take them to church. I always have. I make no apologies for that. Learning "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" kind of goes with the territory. I expect atheist/evolutionist parents to take their children to functions where their beliefs are reinforced. Maybe it's a trip to the natural science museum. Maybe it's watching "Bill Nye the Science Guy Live!' But if you aren't doing anything for your children to somehow learn whatever it is you believe, you aren't doing your job IMO.

jmdrake
12-11-2014, 12:56 PM
Holy thread ressurection, Batman!!!!

No time like the present to remind everyone that we can agree to disagree on the creation/evolution debate and still be libertarians.

Occam's Banana
12-11-2014, 01:03 PM
No time like the present to remind everyone that we can agree to disagree on the creation/evolution debate and still be libertarians.

I would go so far as to say that you can't be a libertarian unless you can agree to disagree on the creation/evolution debate (among other things).

Suzu
12-11-2014, 01:37 PM
Everything is a theory until it is thoroughly tested by modern science and properly reflected in "peer reviewed journals."
Actually... no. A theory in the scientific sense is quite different; it is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

amy31416
12-11-2014, 01:45 PM
Where I'm from, I never met a single creationist, Republican or Democrat, Christian or whatever religion.

The only time it was ever even brought up was in a philosophy course in college. Nobody there bought into it either--and my professor was quite conservative and likely a Republican.

Ronin Truth
12-11-2014, 02:09 PM
If you can't reproduce it in a lab, then it ain't science. (At least that's what the method says.)

jmdrake
12-11-2014, 02:38 PM
Where I'm from, I never met a single creationist, Republican or Democrat, Christian or whatever religion.

The only time it was ever even brought up was in a philosophy course in college. Nobody there bought into it either--and my professor was quite conservative and likely a Republican.

Well most people I know are creationists. And many have strong scientific backgrounds. (Doctors, dentists, physics professors, pharmacologists, you name it.) I'm not sure personally how someone rationalizes the Christian view that death didn't exist until sin (Romans 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.") But then again, you have Christians booing Ron Paul when he talked about the golden rule so I guess anything goes in Christianity these days.

Anyway, ultimately Rand is running in a republican primary. Depending on the way the question is asked, up to 60 percent of republicans believe in young earth creationism.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

I have to say "depending on how the question is asked" because there was another poll where only 48% took the creationist view as opposed to 43% rejecting it. But the question in that poll was poorly worded. The question was whether you believed “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” Well duh! I believe humans have evolved over time. God didn't create a African Adam and Eve and a European Adam and Eve and an Asian Adam and Eve. Since the Gallup poll shows an "increase" from 2008 to 2013 of republicans accepting creationism, I believe the Pew numbers probably increased as well and are likely the best numbers. Rand doesn't have to overtly push creationism to win but he does need to at least treat it as a respectable alternative.

mrsat_98
12-11-2014, 02:41 PM
There is compelling evidence of genetic tinkering
with **** sapiens millions of years ago. This planet has a very long and interesting history that I'm sure would raise a few conservative eyebrows.
Look into forbidden archaeology sometime. !


...aka intelligent design. Which is what I believe IF there is a supreme being. I'm more of an agnostic.


You mean "tinkering" by an intelligen agent?

I've got to see this evidence. Please link me.

http://www.paranormalpeopleonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/19cb52_ancient-aliens.jpg

Chester Copperpot
12-11-2014, 05:45 PM
evolution is a crock of shit. its simply crap made up by men to explain stuff which they have no answer for.

Brett85
12-11-2014, 06:32 PM
I think Rand has said that he believes in evolution. I don't think he's going to push creationism in the GOP debates or say that he's even open to it. That's an issue I disagree with him on, but it's not a big deal since I don't really think it's a political issue to begin with.

Natural Citizen
12-11-2014, 06:44 PM
If he memorizes the old bologna detection kit, he'll be ayite.

Warning signs that suggest deception...

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-11-2014, 08:01 PM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact. It doesn't make me support Ron Paul any less that he's ignorant on it; I don't agree with him--or anyone--on absolutely everything.

acptulsa
12-11-2014, 08:32 PM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact. It doesn't make me support Ron Paul any less that he's ignorant on it; I don't agree with him--or anyone--on absolutely everything.

Assuming that someone who disagrees with a theory is ignorant is not a logical conclusion. It's more of a leap of faith.

Ron Paul could well know more about Darwin than you do.

staerker
12-11-2014, 09:06 PM
Actually... no. A theory in the scientific sense is quite different; it is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

Considering the concept of evolution as scientific is a huge joke. The past cannot be observed, experimented with, or be subject to predictions.

However, I do not see the two concepts as contradictory. When the universe was first created (from a single point?) and was expanding, who knows how much time transpired due to the concentration of mass (relativity.) God created creatures somehow, and their molecules were arranged somehow. They could have been divinely arranged in an instant, or maybe divinely arranged over many generations. When God created Adam, did it take him two seconds? Three? Well it happened in less than one Earth day right? Again, that could mean nothing due to relativity, and a solar system + cosmos not yet in equilibrium.

GunnyFreedom
12-11-2014, 09:40 PM
I'm an Atheist, and absolutely sure Evolution is a correct theory.

BUT I AGREE WITH DR PAUL that this is not a valid question to ask a Presidential candidate, and is completely irrelevant to his politics.

It's that simple. I don't care what he believes in science, ethics, music, theater, books, proper tooth-brushing method, or how people should do their hair.

I only care how he would lead this nation. And he would undeniably be the greatest president since Thomas Jefferson.

Yes, why can't people get this? And when we learn to respect that a rational man may believe opposite to ourselves, then we will progress even further. I am a creationist. I used to be an evolutionist. I am scientific-minded, and I am not irrational. We would probably never come to terms on this subject, it's highly divisive, and when in the physical world we end up at the same conclusions anyway, what's the point in fighting about it? There is a base presumption on both 'sides' of the argument that creationists are ignorant and evolutionists are fornicating with the devil. (less evident on RPF's than most places thank God)

But when real progress will be gained, is when both sides can emotionally grasp that a rational man may logically believe the opposite position from themselves.

Dr Paul's creationist position did not prevent his having an intimate knowledge of how the human body works, and how drugs affect outcomes and health. As a scientist, Paul was one to the top in his field, even as he is a creationist. So at some point it behests us to ask ourselves, is it possible that Ron Paul, a creationist, is completely rational here despite disagreeing with my beliefs so fundamentally?

GunnyFreedom
12-11-2014, 09:44 PM
Assuming that someone who disagrees with a theory is ignorant is not a logical conclusion. It's more of a leap of faith.

Ron Paul could well know more about Darwin than you do.

Probably does. Medical school, pharmacology. Organic chemistry. The entire medical field is constructed within an evolutionary paradigm. Dr Paul was an extraordinarily successful Obstetrician. So, I would imagine yes, he would.

amy31416
12-11-2014, 10:37 PM
Well most people I know are creationists. And many have strong scientific backgrounds. (Doctors, dentists, physics professors, pharmacologists, you name it.) I'm not sure personally how someone rationalizes the Christian view that death didn't exist until sin (Romans 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.") But then again, you have Christians booing Ron Paul when he talked about the golden rule so I guess anything goes in Christianity these days.

Anyway, ultimately Rand is running in a republican primary. Depending on the way the question is asked, up to 60 percent of republicans believe in young earth creationism.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

I have to say "depending on how the question is asked" because there was another poll where only 48% took the creationist view as opposed to 43% rejecting it. But the question in that poll was poorly worded. The question was whether you believed “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” Well duh! I believe humans have evolved over time. God didn't create a African Adam and Eve and a European Adam and Eve and an Asian Adam and Eve. Since the Gallup poll shows an "increase" from 2008 to 2013 of republicans accepting creationism, I believe the Pew numbers probably increased as well and are likely the best numbers. Rand doesn't have to overtly push creationism to win but he does need to at least treat it as a respectable alternative.

Perhaps it's a regional thing. I don't know.

Part of the reason that atheists can be so annoying and condescending is because so many Christian conservatives deny things like evolution, when there's so much evidence for it. (No, no interest in getting into this debate with anyone--it'll just disgust me.) When I've asked those who believe in young earth creationism to take just a couple of courses--they have always refused. I'd suggested a carbon-dating course (and they go over other kinds), along with an evolutionary biology course.

Just audit the courses, they probably won't even have to pay for it. If you're too afraid to challenge your beliefs--are they really true beliefs?

(Not referring to you, of course.)

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-11-2014, 10:44 PM
Assuming that someone who disagrees with a theory is ignorant is not a logical conclusion. It's more of a leap of faith.

Ron Paul could well know more about Darwin than you do.
He may know more about Darwin, but evolution moved on from Charles Darwin ages ago. The evidence is quite cut and dry. Modern genetics is enough to prove evolution, let alone all the other evidence. The only reason people profess a belief in creationism is ignorance, dishonesty or a simple inability to move past religious presuppositions. I have never seen a single exception, all creationists fall into at least one of those three camps. I don't think Ron Paul is dishonest or some fundamentalist, so one option remains. It really is too bad that the word "ignorant" has become a pejorative in itself. There's no shame in being ignorant; all humans have a very small breadth of knowledge about certain topics (regardless of how intelligent and/or educated one may be) and a vast wealth of ignorance about most other things. Ron Paul is no exception.

Tywysog Cymru
12-11-2014, 10:48 PM
My parents stopped believing in evolution by the time I was in Kindergarten. But they always encouraged me in science and I think my dad was somewhat disappointed that I'm more into social studies such as history (which is my current major). People act like teaching creationism in schools will get people to abandon science, but most creationists I know are very scientifically minded.

kpitcher
12-11-2014, 10:59 PM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact. It doesn't make me support Ron Paul any less that he's ignorant on it; I don't agree with him--or anyone--on absolutely everything.

Welcome to the boards. I would say libertarians are quite an eclectic set of people and a wide range of topics. Plenty of places on the forums for everyone, many sub forums for specific sorts of topics. Some sections and posts are far more faith based than science based.

As to this topic semantics are confusing to many. Everything in science is a theory, including gravity. That's the scientific method at work.

GunnyFreedom
12-11-2014, 11:19 PM
Perhaps it's a regional thing. I don't know.

Part of the reason that atheists can be so annoying and condescending is because so many Christian conservatives deny things like evolution, when there's so much evidence for it. (No, no interest in getting into this debate with anyone--it'll just disgust me.) When I've asked those who believe in young earth creationism to take just a couple of courses--they have always refused. I'd suggested a carbon-dating course (and they go over other kinds), along with an evolutionary biology course.

Just audit the courses, they probably won't even have to pay for it. If you're too afraid to challenge your beliefs--are they really true beliefs?

(Not referring to you, of course.)

I believe in the validity of carbon dating and young-earth at the same time. The universe emerged from a singularity. Time dilates in the spatial or temporal vicinity of a singularity. From one perspective it is 42 Billion years, from another perspective it is 6000 years. To match the perspectives you have to use a logarithmic scale for one of the datasets, because the temporal dilation reduces exponentially with distance from the singularity.

Ronin Truth
12-11-2014, 11:20 PM
"Transformism (macroevolution) is a fairy tale for adults." -- Jean Rostand

Ronin Truth
12-11-2014, 11:45 PM
http://www.google.com/custom?q=evolution&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.co m%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Flrc%2Fimages%2Fgoogle-search-header.png&domains=www.lewrockwell.com&sitesearch=www.lewrockwell.com

angelatc
12-11-2014, 11:59 PM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact.

I am not a creationist, but that's not exactly right either.

Jamesiv1
12-12-2014, 01:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Anyone who wouldn't vote for Ron or Rand over this deserves to live in a fascist state.
^^This

All you guys are effing retards if you don't believe what I believe.

Bunch of pot-smoking hippies, the whole lot of ya.

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 08:00 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=panspermia&hl=en&gbv=2&revid=122173915&oq=&gs_l=

Life ONLY comes from life.

You got any exceptions?

acptulsa
12-12-2014, 08:11 AM
He may know more about Darwin, but evolution moved on from Charles Darwin ages ago. The evidence is quite cut and dry. Modern genetics is enough to prove evolution, let alone all the other evidence. The only reason people profess a belief in creationism is ignorance, dishonesty or a simple inability to move past religious presuppositions. I have never seen a single exception, all creationists fall into at least one of those three camps. I don't think Ron Paul is dishonest or some fundamentalist, so one option remains. It really is too bad that the word "ignorant" has become a pejorative in itself. There's no shame in being ignorant; all humans have a very small breadth of knowledge about certain topics (regardless of how intelligent and/or educated one may be) and a vast wealth of ignorance about most other things. Ron Paul is no exception.

I wasn't trying to imply Darwin remains the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory. I was simply trying to bless my writing with a tidbit of style. And to reject evolution it is not necessary to be ignorant of it. Read Gunny's post above; he knows what I'm talking about.

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 08:21 AM
I've always wondered if the big bang actually made a noise. :cool:

specsaregood
12-12-2014, 08:34 AM
evolution is a crock of shit. its simply crap made up by men to explain stuff which they have no answer for.

well that makes sense; since if I was a God, evolution is exactly how I would choose to populate a planet. It is a much more miraculous and amazing process than just making things complete. but then again, I am just a man.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 08:36 AM
First of all, evolution is just mutations (insertions, deletions, proof reading errors etc) over a long period of time. Everybody believes DNA replication is not without errors and there are some many other ways the DNA will change after replication. This is essentially what is evolution. Separate a couple of twins (boy, girl) and put em on different islands and let em procreate and survive. After 100,000 years apart, the offspring may not even be able to mate with each other and that my friend is evolution. Some Christians may not want to say it because it doesn't against their belief but evolution is an undeniable fact. A fact which completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding who the POTUS is going to be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

Just a good evolution video I like posting in this sort of threads

staerker
12-12-2014, 08:55 AM
First of all, evolution is just mutations (insertions, deletions, proof reading errors etc) over a long period of time. Everybody believes DNA replication is not without errors and there are some many other ways the DNA will change after replication. This is essentially what is evolution. Separate a couple of twins (boy, girl) and put em on different islands and let em procreate and survive. After 100,000 years apart, the offspring may not even be able to mate with each other and that my friend is evolution. Some Christians may not want to say it because it doesn't against their belief but evolution is an undeniable fact. A fact which completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding who the POTUS is going to be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

Just a good evolution video I like posting in this sort of threads

Don't try to peddle an observable process, and a guess at history (using said process,) as one and the same. It adds even more confusion to the discussion.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 09:21 AM
Don't try to peddle an observable process, and a guess at history (using said process,) as one and the same. It adds even more confusion to the discussion.

I don't think you understand me, mutation is a fact. I don't think anyone with a cursory knowledge of DNA replication doubts it. This is the base of all evolution, this is the reason why all your siblings don't look the identical even though they are your siblings. The video is just a sped up result of said mutation mixed with things like selective breeding, survival of the fittest etc and other worldly factors that pick which lineage survives.

Better believe it, evolution is a fact

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 09:29 AM
http://www.lloydpye.com/interventionebooksample.pdf

staerker
12-12-2014, 09:33 AM
I don't think you understand me, mutation is a fact. I don't think anyone with a cursory knowledge of DNA replication doubts it. This is the base of all evolution, this is the reason why all your siblings don't look the identical even though they are your siblings. The video is just a sped up result of said mutation mixed with things like selective breeding, survival of the fittest etc and other worldly factors that pick which lineage survives.

Better believe it, evolution is a fact

I understand that mutation is a fact. However, a guess as to the origin of species before recorded history is not a fact. It has not been observed, and can never be.

I find it humorous when people extrapolate less than 10,000 years of history into over 1,000,000,000 years, and want me to believe that their guesses are even relatively accurate.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 09:44 AM
I understand that mutation is a fact. However, a guess as to the origin of species before recorded history is not a fact. It has not been observed, and can never be.

I find it humorous when people extrapolate less than 10,000 years of history into over 1,000,000,000 years, and want me to believe that their guesses are even relatively accurate.

Its not really a guess on the origin of species, you see a baby tiger and a lion and you immediately know they are related, then you look at their genome and it confirms it. There are genetic markers and phenotype characteristics that one can use to map out the relationship between different animals. But that is beside the point, my main reason for posting on this thread is to say that evolution is a fact. I do not know what the first organism or sets of organisms that started all this evolving is but I do know that evolution both micro and macro is a fact.

JohnM
12-12-2014, 09:48 AM
Evolution is a stone cold fact.

Really? How can you be so certain?


Modern genetics is enough to prove evolution, let alone all the other evidence.

I have a degree in genetics.

Modern genetics certainly provides some evidence for evolution - but to claim that it proves it seems to me to be both incredibly dogmatic and a little naive.

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 09:51 AM
Its not really a guess on the origin of species, you see a baby tiger and a lion and you immediately know they are related, then you look at their genome and it confirms it. There are genetic markers and phenotype characteristics that one can use to map out the relationship between different animals. But that is beside the point, my main reason for posting on this thread is to say that evolution is a fact. I do not know what the first organism or sets of organisms that started all this evolving is but I do know that evolution both micro and macro is a fact.


Lots and lots of evidence for micro, ZIP for macro. :p


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 10:00 AM
Really? How can you be so certain?




Well. The very nature of science is that we aren't permitted absolute thruths. So that's that. I subscribe to evolution but cannot absolutely discredit creationism. The human mind is a hoot alright.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 10:00 AM
Really? How can you be so certain?



I have a degree in genetics.

Modern genetics certainly provides some evidence for evolution - but to claim that it proves it seems to me to be both incredibly dogmatic and a little naive.

So what your class did not skip the DNA replication portion of the course where the different DNA pols help proof read the replicated nucleotides? Also talks about how the proof reading still leaves errors in replication. I will be asking for my money back if I graduated with a degree in genetics and still doubt evolution.

jllundqu
12-12-2014, 10:06 AM
Well. The very nature of science is that we aren't permitted absolute thruths. So that's that.

This and close thread. Creationists need the certainty provided by the bible. Scientists are just fine looking in the mirror and saying, "I don't know all the answers, but the evidence points to (fill in the blank)."

If scientific evidence pointed to a young earth and other such nonsense, scientists would change their tune. Thankfully, all the evidence points to the Earth forming from the remnants of the sun's creation some 4.3 billion years ago. Amino acids bouncing around the liquid surface joined together to create the first protein at some point. The rest is history.

jllundqu
12-12-2014, 10:08 AM
So what your class did not skip the DNA replication portion of the course where the different DNA pols help proof read the replicated nucleotides? Also talks about how the proof reading still leaves errors in replication. I will be asking for my money back if I graduated with a degree in genetics and still doubt evolution.

I think you two are debating the semantics between evolution and mutation. The process you are describing is mutation. I agree that over a billion generations of replication and mutation, that DNA would not look anything like the original strand and I would call that evolution.

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 10:21 AM
This and close thread. Creationists need the certainty provided by the bible. Scientists are just fine looking in the mirror and saying, "I don't know all the answers, but the evidence points to (fill in the blank)."



It seems to me that the most vocal or active people from the creationist community in these kinds of debates have been exposed to some level of scientific "truth" and they tend to write or talk about this because it tends to disrupt philosophies that they hold. And so it makes it seem like it is some huge debate when they take to keyboards and blogs but that demographic is actually very small when we consider that most religious people actually don't have basic knowledge of the scientific roadblocks and spend very little time debating it at all. That group doesn't really make it appear to be a huge disruptive debate in the way that their counterparts do. They tend to welcome a lot of the scientific theory. And they actually outnumber, greatly, those who do have a basic knowledge of science and who, as I said, write and talk about it in a way that creates the illusion that it is some huge, national, debate. Which is probably what I was getting at in my previous post when I had mentioned the human mind. It's funny in a way how we tend to make things bigger than they actually are. And this thread is really a good example of the phenomenon if we look back and read the whole thing or consider the purpose for starting a debate on the subject in a political way.

I've learned to avoid these debates for the most part just because of the human nature of them but sometimes there are comments that lead me to participate because they stimulate elevation of subject matter like this. what JohnM had asked was a great example of that.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 10:29 AM
I think you two are debating the semantics between evolution and mutation. The process you are describing is mutation. I agree that over a billion generations of replication and mutation, that DNA would not look anything like the original strand and I would call that evolution.

So I the problem is with the word right? I guess lets just rename evolution as mutatlution and everybody will go along with it. I think some people are afraid of the implication i.e. if evolution can happen then the bible is wrong. If you believe in micro evolution, you believe in evolution, its that simple. But like someone already said, this could be the way God designed the world to operate and I will add to this by saying that he just simplified the story to Adam and Eve so they wouldn't ask too many questions.

As far as I am concerned, mutation is evolution. We cannot have evolution without mutations and we all know that every single time a gamete (male and female) replicates, there are some mutations that go along with it. We are being subjected to thousands of micro evolutions every time we reproduce and these micro evolutions will be called macro evolutions in a billion yrs

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 10:45 AM
Now all we need is, some evidence in the fossil records, of those bazillions of intermediate transitional species between current species A and current species B. For an example: bats to whales (or vice versa).

William Tell
12-12-2014, 10:50 AM
Now all we need is, some evidence in the fossil records, of those bazillions of intermediate transitional species between current species A and current species B. For an example: bats to whales (or vice versa).

Too bad they don't exist, eh?

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 10:51 AM
I was reading a paper talking about a new species of man that was recently found. The missing link, they say.

William Tell
12-12-2014, 10:54 AM
Sydney Morning Herald
..............................
Found: Tree From The Dinosaur Age, And It's Alive
By James Woodford
Environment Writer

12/14/1994
Sydney Morning Herald
1
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd

Only a few times this century has something so spectacular as the Wollemi pine turned up - a living fossil that has miraculously survived the ravages of unimaginable time in its own little Jurassic Park in the Blue Mountains.
The previously unknown native tree is a towering 40 metres tall, with a three-metre girth, is covered in dense, waxy foliage and has distinctive bubbly bark that makes it look as though it is coated in Coco Pops.

Missing for 150 million years, its discovery in a remote gorge in Wollemi National Park, 200 kilometres west of Sydney, has astonished scientists.
Its only known home is a tiny 5,000 square metre relic grove of prehistoric rainforest in the 500,000-hectare park. So far only 23 adults and 16 juveniles have been found, making it also one of the world's rarest plants.
Once the trees may have covered vast areas of the continent, but as the climate changed the trees apparently retreated into the damp, protected gorge: they have somehow hung on through millions of years of massive climatic change and terrible aridity in more recent prehistoric times, when countless other plants perished.
"The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on Earth," said Professor Carrick Chambers, the director of the Royal Botanic Gardens. "It is a really major find."
The scientific director at the gardens, Dr Barbara Briggs, said: "On the world scene it's one of the most outstanding discoveries of the century."



http://www.wollemipine.com/images/arrowu.gif
Top (http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Found_Tree_from_the_Dinosaur_Age.php#top)




The few scientists who have been alerted to the find so far have put it on a par with the rediscovery of the lungfish in south-east Queensland in 1870, or the coelacanth in the depths of the Indian Ocean in 1938: both fish had previously been known only from 385 million-year-old fossils.
The Wollemi pine was discovered in August by Mr David Noble, a project officer with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), who was spending his weekend in the park. He was canyoning in a 600-metre-deep gorge when the big trees caught his eye. He brought a branch back to show to Mr Wyn Jones, a senior naturalist with the NPWS.
After a cursory glance, Mr Jones told Mr Noble that he thought the branch was from a fern. "No," Mr Noble said, "It's from a bloody great big tree."
Mr Jones first saw the trees in the wild a fortnight later.
"My reaction was amazement," Mr Jones said, "I had never seen anything like it."
Since then Mr Noble, who may have the tree scientifically named after him, Mr Jones and a volunteer, Ms Jan Allen, have made several trips to study the trees.
Today the NSW Government, the NPWS and the Royal Botanic Gardens will formally declare that the Wollemi Pine is a new genus - the scientific classification used to embrace a group of similar species.



http://www.wollemipine.com/images/arrowu.gif
Top (http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Found_Tree_from_the_Dinosaur_Age.php#top)




Final identification of the genus was done by Mr Ken Hill, senior botanist at the Royal Botanic Gardens. "When you can find 40-metre-high trees 200 kilometres from a major city it makes you wonder what else is out there in places that are even more remote," Mr Hill said.
The only trees like it that have existed on Earth are found in fossils deposited during the time of the dinosaurs. The genus is midway between New Zealand's kauri pines and Australia's Norfolk and hoop pines.
"This tree is a missing link between the kauri pines and the araucaria pines (includes hoop, bunya and Norfolk Pines) it will fill in a whole lot of gaps in our knowledge," said Mr Hill.
Scientists from the Gardens are trying to propagate it as a precaution against collectors stealing seeds or a natural disaster such as a bushfire.
Fewer than 10 people know the location of the trees. "It's going to be one of the stunning conifers of the world," said Mr Hill.
PAGE 8: The chance discovery; waiting wildlife.
BACK FROM THE DEAD: RECENT REDISCOVERIES
WOLLEMI PINE
Fossil Record: 150 million years old
Found: Aug 1994, Wollemi National Park
DAWN REDWOOD
Fossil Record: 70 million years old

Found: 1945, Sichuan provinvce China
BONDEGEZOU (tree kangaroo)
Found: June 1994, Maokop Range, Irian Jaya
COELACANTH
Fossil Record: 385 million years old
Found: 1938, Madagascar Trench
LUNGFISH
Fossil Record: 385 million years old

Discovered: 1870, Burnett and Mary rivers, SE Qld

Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



http://www.wollemipine.com/images/arrowu.gif
Top (http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Found_Tree_from_the_Dinosaur_Age.php#top)


http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Found_Tree_from_the_Dinosaur_Age.php

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 11:00 AM
Too bad they don't exist, eh?

Not of any relevance to the worshipers in the Church of Evolution.

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 11:02 AM
I was reading a paper talking about a new species of man that was recently found. The missing link, they say.

Source?

Primate or hominid?

William Tell
12-12-2014, 11:02 AM
I was reading a paper talking about a new species of man that was recently found. The missing link, they say.


Not of any relevance to the worshipers in the Church of Evolution.

If only they could find one missing link.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 11:04 AM
I think Rand has said that he believes in evolution. I don't think he's going to push creationism in the GOP debates or say that he's even open to it. That's an issue I disagree with him on, but it's not a big deal since I don't really think it's a political issue to begin with.

Link please? The only thing I can find is Rand not answering the question of how old the earth is. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/11/age-earth-old-rubio-perry-rand-paul.html

Ron Paul didn't push creationism in the GOP. When the value voters summit tried to get him to answer if he denied evolution, he didn't raise his hand. But later when asked for clarification he said it was a theory and he didn't accept it. I don't think that Rand should push for creationism. But he should definitely push back against those who want to force evolution on everybody. Come on Bill Nye. Your side already won the public school classroom. Don't force your crap on parents themselves.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 11:08 AM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact. It doesn't make me support Ron Paul any less that he's ignorant on it; I don't agree with him--or anyone--on absolutely everything.

Thank you for your opinion about the theory of evolution. But calling it a "stone cold fact" is what is ignorant. No real scientist would ever do that. Even the theory of relativity is still debated even though aspects of it can be observed in the laboratory. And as someone else said, someone can know more than you about a theory and still disagree with it. I was debating global warming with a friend of mine once. She was convinced (and still is) that man made global warming is real (Al Gore considers it a "stone cold fact"), yet she didn't know that carbon dioxide is the main gas being blamed for global warming.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 11:12 AM
Not of any relevance to the worshipers in the Church of Evolution.

You mean church of macro evolution right?


I was reading a paper talking about a new species of man that was recently found. The missing link, they say.

See, when you are talking about millions and millions of micro evolutions, there is no one missing links. There is no one point where humans beings started being humans. Any "link" you find will either be not humanoid enough or too humanoid to be dismissed by anyone who wants to doubt evolution. Ooops, I mean to say macro evolution, the only type anyone can still doubt without losing all scientific credibility :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU

Another well made video that helps explain the problem with trying to find the missing link.

Brett85
12-12-2014, 11:25 AM
Link please? The only thing I can find is Rand not answering the question of how old the earth is. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/11/age-earth-old-rubio-perry-rand-paul.html

Ron Paul didn't push creationism in the GOP. When the value voters summit tried to get him to answer if he denied evolution, he didn't raise his hand. But later when asked for clarification he said it was a theory and he didn't accept it. I don't think that Rand should push for creationism. But he should definitely push back against those who want to force evolution on everybody. Come on Bill Nye. Your side already won the public school classroom. Don't force your crap on parents themselves.

Here is one.

http://zpolitics.com/the-other-side-rand-paul-asked-about-paul-broun/

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 11:35 AM
Source?

Primate or hominid?

Hominid. I'll have to dig it back up. I had thought about sharing it here when I read it but didn't feel like the public debate on it.

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 11:37 AM
You mean church of macro evolution right?



See, when you are talking about millions and millions of micro evolutions, there is no one missing links. There is no one point where humans beings started being humans. Any "link" you find will either be not humanoid enough or too humanoid to be dismissed by anyone who wants to doubt evolution. Ooops, I mean to say macro evolution, the only type anyone can still doubt without losing all scientific credibility :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU

Another well made video that helps explain the problem with trying to find the missing link.

Yeah, I buy micro. There's sufficient supporting evidence for that.

Just out of curiosity what percentage of mutations are lethal to the life form and are thus weeded out of the genomes and are not passed on to subsequent generations?

presence
12-12-2014, 11:40 AM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/17/171af2fa2010acf5641e09f3a41dfcba8028d685960bf5d6a9 755b8e96602233.jpg

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 11:52 AM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/17/171af2fa2010acf5641e09f3a41dfcba8028d685960bf5d6a9 755b8e96602233.jpg

Actually, ain't he supposedly ultimately responsible for creating EVERYTHING?

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 12:04 PM
Here is one.

http://zpolitics.com/the-other-side-rand-paul-asked-about-paul-broun/

I think you've just been a victim of Randspeak. When Rand Paul was asked by Bill Maher about his view on climate change, Rand said it is an undeniable fact that more CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since then industrial revolution than at anytime before. Well....duh! But that's saying nothing about his belief on whether that CO2 is causing the earth to get warmer. Similarly I wouldn't say that evolution and the big bang are "lies from the pit of hell." First off it was a Christian who came up with the big bang theory, and the idea that God could have created the universe with a "bang" is not at all incompatible with Genesis. In fact some atheists initially rejected the big bang theory because they felt that it pointed to a beginning which implied the possibility of a creator. They were much happier with a "the universe just always existed" theory. And most creationists support at least some form of evolution. Man differentiating and adapting to his environment, yes. Man evolving from some more primitive species....no.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 12:18 PM
You mean church of macro evolution right?



See, when you are talking about millions and millions of micro evolutions, there is no one missing links. There is no one point where humans beings started being humans. Any "link" you find will either be not humanoid enough or too humanoid to be dismissed by anyone who wants to doubt evolution. Ooops, I mean to say macro evolution, the only type anyone can still doubt without losing all scientific credibility :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU

Another well made video that helps explain the problem with trying to find the missing link.

Ah...that's nice. Except that's not what critics of evolution are saying. It's not that there is this nice continual progression of fossils where you can't tell a specific "missing link". It's that there are huge gaps in the fossil record.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USBI0GSSOA

Suzu
12-12-2014, 12:20 PM
Too bad they don't exist, eh?
Of course they do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 12:28 PM
Of course they do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


You got any whale bats or bat whales?

juleswin
12-12-2014, 12:40 PM
Ah...that's nice. Except that's not what critics of evolution are saying. It's not that there is this nice continual progression of fossils where you can't tell a specific "missing link". It's that there are huge gaps in the fossil record.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USBI0GSSOA

Just because we don't have fossil evidence of the story pre Cambrian explosion doesn't mean someone put all the species on the earth and then pressed play for evolution to start. There is a lot of evidence that has been destroyed and a lot more that we are yet to discover. But at the end of the day, macro evolution is still a fact of life. There is no middle ground about it, it is not something to be debated. We can debate about what set the process in motion or where it started, but evolution is a fact.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 12:53 PM
Yeah, I buy micro. There's sufficient supporting evidence for that.

Just out of curiosity what percentage of mutations are lethal to the life form and are thus weeded out of the genomes and are not passed on to subsequent generations?

Again, macro evolution is just micro evolution over time. Believing in one necessitates that you believe in the other one. And what percentage of mutation do you think is lethal to humans? think of it like this, every sperm produced by your body has in its DNA an error every 10^9 to 10^11 nucleotide (out of about 32 billion nucleotide). And yet just about every single one of those sperms can fertilize an ova with just as much error/mutation in its DNA to produce a healthy baby. So yea for the most part, those mutations aren't very lethal. It can kill you when it comes to cancer but cancer rates are quite very low when you stack it against every form of mutation that happens to use everyday.


You got any whale bats or bat whales?

Come on, you can do better than that.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 01:00 PM
Again, macro evolution is just micro evolution over time. Believing in one necessitates that you believe in the other one.

No it doesn't. You can believe in micro evolution (small changes) without having to come up with a way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An evolutionary change that goes laterally requires no increase in entropy. (Moths that are darker surviving better when there is smog). Also going from a more complex level to a lower level of complexity isn't a problem. (Cave fish with no eyes). Going from a simple organism to a more complex one is the issue. Now I'm sure you have your reason for believing that happened, but you can't honestly say that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 01:05 PM
Just because we don't have fossil evidence of the story pre Cambrian explosion doesn't mean someone put all the species on the earth and then pressed play for evolution to start. There is a lot of evidence that has been destroyed and a lot more that we are yet to discover. But at the end of the day, macro evolution is still a fact of life. There is no middle ground about it, it is not something to be debated. We can debate about what set the process in motion or where it started, but evolution is a fact.

Sure we can debate. The question is can we have an honest debate? Seriously? I didn't say the Cambrian explosion proved there must have been a god that started everything. I said the Cambrian explosion, and the lack of transitional fossils or "missing links" preceding it, is what creationists talk about when we mention the missing link issue. That was not addressed by the video you posted. And no. Macro evolution is not a "fact of life". It is against science for you to make that claim. Science calls evolution a theory. That's what it is, a theory. But it seems that when people want to shout other people down on the internet or in real life they get up on a silly soap box and yell "fact, fact, fact" over and over again as if repeating the same false claim somehow makes it true. The man made global warming hucksters do the exact same thing. So do the Keynesian economists.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:10 PM
If you can't reproduce it in a lab, then it ain't science. (At least that's what the method says.)

Not everything can be known through science. There are some things that we cannot observe that are, nonetheless, real. That is why science has nothing to do with religion. You might say this means religion is not science, but what it really means is that science is not religion. Science is very limited in its scope to what we, as humans, are able to comprehend. If we can't comprehend it, however, does that mean it's not real? Or does that mean we are simply not built with the capacity to understand every single thing in the universe? No logically thinking human would claim that our brains are perfect judges because we don't even know how our own brains work. We really are quite primitive in the grand scheme of things, despite all of our self-serving technology.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:14 PM
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Aren't you naive...

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:20 PM
As a new member, seeing some of the ignorance about evolution on this forum is a bit disheartening. Evolution is a stone cold fact. It doesn't make me support Ron Paul any less that he's ignorant on it; I don't agree with him--or anyone--on absolutely everything.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're new, but there is nothing in this world that is not up for debate, ESPECIALLY the fucking beginning of life. What issue could be more convoluted and subject to human bias than that?

Besides, telling me that a historical theory is fact is even more bullshit than telling me that scientific theory is fact. NOTHING can be absolutely proven. That is one of the core tenets of scientific thought, and yet I hear people who claim to be scientific thinkers espouse this ridiculous notion that a particular theory is FACT. It's just not. All of the evidence is wide open to interpretation, and different people are going to interpret it differently based on their agenda.

It's so easy to interpret things in a seemingly logical fashion while using entirely the wrong framework to begin with. Saying this is fact is disingenuous and ludicrous.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:26 PM
He may know more about Darwin, but evolution moved on from Charles Darwin ages ago. The evidence is quite cut and dry. Modern genetics is enough to prove evolution, let alone all the other evidence. The only reason people profess a belief in creationism is ignorance, dishonesty or a simple inability to move past religious presuppositions. I have never seen a single exception, all creationists fall into at least one of those three camps. I don't think Ron Paul is dishonest or some fundamentalist, so one option remains. It really is too bad that the word "ignorant" has become a pejorative in itself. There's no shame in being ignorant; all humans have a very small breadth of knowledge about certain topics (regardless of how intelligent and/or educated one may be) and a vast wealth of ignorance about most other things. Ron Paul is no exception.

Nobody said ignorant was a pejorative. However, the fact that you assume Ron Paul is ignorant when he is, in fact, a doctor actually displays your ignorance. He may very well know more about the subject than you or most people and yet still reject it. You didn't arrive at the conclusion that evolution is a solid theory based on your own experimentation. You were told it and you believed it, and then you used the ASSUMPTION that it was correct as a ruler by which to judge other people when you don't even know about it yourself.

Natural Citizen
12-12-2014, 01:31 PM
Aren't you naive...

Scientists are sometimes just as biased as others. Agreed.

Weird that I rep you for assuming me naive. Heh...

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:33 PM
Perhaps it's a regional thing. I don't know.

Part of the reason that atheists can be so annoying and condescending is because so many Christian conservatives deny things like evolution, when there's so much evidence for it. (No, no interest in getting into this debate with anyone--it'll just disgust me.) When I've asked those who believe in young earth creationism to take just a couple of courses--they have always refused. I'd suggested a carbon-dating course (and they go over other kinds), along with an evolutionary biology course.

Just audit the courses, they probably won't even have to pay for it. If you're too afraid to challenge your beliefs--are they really true beliefs?

(Not referring to you, of course.)

Tons of religious people take courses with heavy evolutionary bias. I took chemistry, moleculary biology and genetics courses in college. I did quite well in all those classes even while rejecting the notion that all of the stuff I learned was due to some some slow change over millions of years.

There are many people who don't want to do such a thing because they think it is a waste of time in the same way that you think it is a waste of time to debate the subject here... it just frustrates you. It's not about a willingness to challenge one's beliefs. You just assumed it was because you have a set idea in your mind of what religious people are like when you use exactly the same excuses to get out of challenging your own beliefs. It's a waste of time, you said. I'm sure they thought so, too. Now how does that make them any less aware or open-minded than you?

juleswin
12-12-2014, 01:35 PM
No it doesn't. You can believe in micro evolution (small changes) without having to come up with a way around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An evolutionary change that goes laterally requires no increase in entropy. (Moths that are darker surviving better when there is smog). Also going from a more complex level to a lower level of complexity isn't a problem. (Cave fish with no eyes). Going from a simple organism to a more complex one is the issue. Now I'm sure you have your reason for believing that happened, but you can't honestly say that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.

If you believe small changes in a small period of time, why is it so hard to believe in big changes in a long period of time? Thermodynamics and entropy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, there is no direction to evolution, it just happens. Sometimes it leads to smarter and more complex organism and other times it leads to dummer and simpler organisms. Both videos I posted talked about simpler organism evolving to more complex organisms we have today.


Sure we can debate. The question is can we have an honest debate? Seriously? I didn't say the Cambrian explosion proved there must have been a god that started everything. I said the Cambrian explosion, and the lack of transitional fossils or "missing links" preceding it, is what creationists talk about when we mention the missing link issue. That was not addressed by the video you posted. And no. Macro evolution is not a "fact of life". It is against science for you to make that claim. Science calls evolution a theory. That's what it is, a theory. But it seems that when people want to shout other people down on the internet or in real life they get up on a silly soap box and yell "fact, fact, fact" over and over again as if repeating the same false claim somehow makes it true. The man made global warming hucksters do the exact same thing. So do the Keynesian economists.

Yes you did not say the cambrian explosion is proof of a supernatural intervention, but the lady scientist in the video did and I bet you that was the intent behind the video creation. We all of a sudden see an explosion in complex organisms in the fossil record without enough fossil record to draw up their evolutionary history. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the message they are trying to convey.

I am not trying to shout anyone down, I would love to be in the middle ground on this but theory of evolution just like the theory of gravity has been confirmed. Evolution happens, it has been demonstrated by animal breeders, scientists, farmers etc etc. Sometimes I wonder why it is still called theory of gravity when we use everyday in aeronautics to make calculations that affect life and death when its still only a theory and not a law. You can compare it to global warming in the sense that carbondioxide is a green house gas. You can argue the overall impact of CO2 but you cannot argue that it is indeed a green house gas. The same way you cannot argue that evolution is not a fact.

Ronin Truth
12-12-2014, 01:39 PM
The End of Evolution (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/fred-reed/the-end-of-evolution/)

Fred Promises to Shut Up About It in the Future

By Fred Reed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/fred-reed/?ptype=article)

December 5, 2013

Having gotten a lot of intelligent and thoughtful mail following a recent column (http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml) on Darwin, a bit of it telling me to read Richard Dawkins, the Amway Salesman of Evolutionism (I have read him, actually), I determined to respond here rather than individually. I promise to shut up on the subject for a long time hereafter.


The Argument from Time Even a Federal Bureaucrat Can Get A Job Done, Given Forever


A staple of evolutionary evasion is time, lots of it. This is particularly applied to the putative formation of the OC (Original Critter). One intones “billions and billions and billions of years,” the implication being that with so very, very, very much time, so many billions of gallons of sea water, surely an OC would have to form. Why, it could hardly help it.
Not necessarily. Probabilities can be more daunting than one might expect. Things that seem intuitively likely sometimes just flat are not. To illustrate the point:

We’ve all heard Sir James Jeans’ assertion that a monkey, pecking randomly on a typewriter, would eventually produce all the books in the British Museum. This may sound reasonable, even obvious, at first glance. But would the monkey in fact ever get even one book?

No. Not in any practical sense.

Consider a thickish book of, say, 200,000 words. By the newspaper estimate that there are on average five letters per word, that’s a million letters. What is the likelihood that our monkey, typing continuously (we ignore upper case and punctuation), will get the book in a given string of a million letters?

He has a 1/26 chance of getting the first letter, times a 1/26 chance of the second, and so on. The chance of getting the book in a million characters is therefore one in 26 to the millionth power. I don’t have a calculator handy, but we can get an approximation. Since 26 = 10(log 26), then 261,000,000 = 10(log 26 x 1,000,000). Since log 10 = 1 and log 100 = 2, log 26 has to be between, somewhere on the low end. Call it 1.2.

The monkey thus has one chance in 1 followed by 1,200,000 zeros. That is what mathematicians call a GBH (Great Big Honker). For practical purposes, one divided by that rascal is zero. If you had a billion billion monkeys (more monkeys than I want) typing a billion billion letters a second, for a billion billion times the estimated age of the universe (1018 seconds is sometimes given), the chance of getting the book would still be essentially zero.

Well, you might say, that is asking a lot of our monkey. How about the chance that the monkey would get the mere title of a book—say, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, the original title of Darwin´s book. If my finger count was correct, that´s 117 letters and spaces. Then the probability is 1 in 26117, or 10(log 26 x 117), giving 10140 and change. Now, again taking the age of the universe as 1018seconds, our monkey would have, sigh, essentially zero chance of getting even the title. Ain´t gonna happen.

Does the chance formation of an Original Critter involve such forbidding numbers? I don´t know that it does. Nor that it doesn´t. It is difficult to calculate the probability of an unknown process of unknown complexity under unknown conditions.


Similarity

If it Looks Like a Duck, It Must Have Descended from a Duck


Another argument holds that the similarity of organisms establishes evolution from common ancestors. But similarity can equally result from modifications to a common design. Similarity in itself establishes neither.

Consider the automobile. In the Cambrian age of cars, the Model T appeared. It was primitive and poorly adapted, but under the selective pressure of the market cars became faster, more powerful, and more reliable. Some species died out—the Stanley Steamer, the Dusenberg. The survivors proliferated and became differentiated as they moved into different environmental niches: Dump trucks appeared, adapted to mines and construction sites. Ferraris learned to survive on race courses. Police cars developed the tools of predation, such as sirens.

Yet all share pistons, con rods, wheels, and cam shafts. Is this similarity due to biological evolution, or modification by engineers of an underlying design?

A Surfeit of Soups

Confected as Desired

When I was fifteen I was an avid reader of New Scientist, which was then written in decent English. (It has since evolved backward.) In that publication I found from time to time articles on how life might have originated chemically. The question was always how, not whether. The suggested circumstances of this origination varied greatly. They never established how life actually did originate, or showed that it could be replicated in the laboratory, or calculated other than vaguely what the chance might have been, if any, of inadvertent origination.

These different theories often required different sorts of primeval ocean, easy enough because no one really knew what the primeval oceans were like. Thus any ocean within easy rifle shot of reason could be assigned to undergird a preferred theory. Callow youth that I was, I began to suspect that the authors didn´t know what they were talking about.

That was a tad over fifty years ago. Today, glancing at “abiogenesis” in the Wikipedia, I find the same thicket of desperate hypotheses, though amplified by decades of imagination. Peruse the following list of hopeful originations and see whether it gives you a warm sensation of certainty.


Current models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models)

3.1 Origin of organic molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Origin_of_organic_molecules)

3.1.1 “Soup” theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Soup.22_theory)

3.1.1.1 Reducing atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Reducing_atmosphere)
3.1.1.2 Monomer formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Monomer_formation)
3.1.1.3 Monomer accumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Monomer_accumulation)
3.1.1.4 Further transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Further_transformation)


3.1.2 Eigen’s hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Eigen.27s_hypothesis)
3.1.3 Hoffmann’s contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Hoffmann.27s_contributions)
3.1.4 Wächtershäuser’s hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#W.C3.A4chtersh.C3.A4user.27s_hypothesi s)
3.1.5 Zn-World hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Zn-World_hypothesis)
3.1.6 Radioactive beach hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Radioactive_beach_hypothesis)
3.1.7 Ultraviolet and temperature-assisted replication model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Ultraviolet_and_temperature-assisted_replication_model)
3.1.8 Models to explain homochirality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Models_to_explain_homochirality)
3.1.9 Self-organization and replication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Self-organization_and_replication)


3.2 From organic molecules to protocells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells)

3.2.1 Deep sea vent hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis)
3.2.2 Coenzyme world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Coenzyme_world)
3.2.3 RNA world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#RNA_world)
3.2.4 “Metabolism first” models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Metabolism_first.22_models)

3.2.4.1 Iron-sulfur world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Iron-sulfur_world)
3.2.4.2 Thermosynthesis world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Thermosynthesis_world)
3.2.4.3 Bubbles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Bubbles)
3.2.4.4 Pumice raft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Pumice_rafts)





One hypothesis, so help me, is that life began on Mars (where it conspicuously has not been discovered by a platoon of itinerant Mars landers) and drifted to the earth. That is, life began where apparently there has never been life. The flexibility of evolutionary thinking is greatly to be admired.

Note that biochemistry is no longer a new science. Lots of biochemists have passed under the bridge by now. Much research on the matter has taken place. Results: nothing. This is curious since the Original Critter, or replicating gadget, would have to have been relatively simple, no? The more complex, the less likely, with probability probably diminishing exponentially with complexity.
So, one asks grumpily, why has some chemical ubergeek with an overhanging IQ not come up with it? If he did, it would be—God help us—Intelligent Design, but it would at least be proof of principle.
To sleep, perchance to dream….


Fred Solves Problem, Awaits Nobel

Obama Got the Peace Prize, Didn´t He?


I subscribe to the DNA-First model. However, it is not the formation of DNA that is hard to explain, but its replication. Given the enormous times involved and a chemically complex sea, it would be surprising if the necessary nuclear bases, adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine, did not appear in small amounts. The only other components needed would be a pentose sugar and phosphate groups.

These are not complex and would bind to the nuclear bases to form nucleotides, as they do in the laboratory. But they would have existed in very low concentrations and had short half-lives. The question is how they got into sufficient proximity to form DNA, which is rather more compex.

I propose a new model: PCR, Paleopolymerase Chain Reaction. (No, it does not mean Politically Correct Rumination. But it could.)
Think of tidal pools along the shores of newly-formed continents. These would naturally serve to concentrate substances in the primeval ocean as the sun evaporated the water. Thus the free-floating nucleotides, though at low concentration in the ocean as a whole, would reach more-reactive levels. Given the vast times involved, very likely DNA would end up forming in these pools. Even so, concentrations would be low.

Now, these pools would get very hot in the relentless sun of those times, hot enough to beak hydrogen bonds and produce single-stranded DNA. Then, as high tide brought cooling water to the pools, the free nucleotides would bind to the single-stranded DNA. Thus the original double-stranded molecule would have become precursor to two double-stranded daughter molecules.
The only component lacking for the synthesis would be DNA polymerase. This would almost certainly be present in the oceans, probably having come in on an asteroid. This should not be surprising. It is known that organic molecules have been found in meteorites, notably carbonaceous chondrites. It is further known that the asteroid that produced the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions brought iridium which spread over the earth. Polymerase dispersal would seem equally likely.

The paleopolymerase would catalyze the formation of the new DNA. Every tide would carry some of the synthesized DNA into the oceans, and bring in more components to be concentrated by the sun. Cycle after cycle, the level of oceanic DNA would increase. It may well be that actual islands of DNA formed. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the primeval forests of later times grew first on these nutrient-rich islands.

I think the foregoing is brilliant. It has all the requisites of a major evolutionary theory, being irreproducible, implausible, unlikely, and based on improbable assumptions. I await my Nobel.

The Best of Fred Reed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/fred-reed/)

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595237134/lewrockwell/)A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/059539390X?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=059539390X), Curmudgeing Through Paradise: Reports from a Fractal Dung Beetle (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0595443745?tag=lewrockwell&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0595443745&adid=12N3JSTQ37G8CW10BKZ8&), Au Phuc Dup and Nowhere to Go: The Only Really True Book About VietNam (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078H7D9E/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B0078H7D9E&adid=080ZSG1N24WG9H2WKD5Y&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F2013%2F0 8%2Ffred-reed%2Fhigher-ed-%25e2%2580%25a8is-dead%2F), and A Grand Adventure: Wisdom's Price-Along with Bits and Pieces about Mexico (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078F0G72/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B0078F0G72&adid=1G0EAQM8DFC165ZCCK7Q&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F2013%2F0 8%2Ffred-reed%2Fhigher-ed-%25e2%2580%25a8is-dead%2F). Visit his blog (http://www.fredoneverything.net/).
Copyright © 2014 Fred Reed

Previous article by Fred Reed: Darwinism Is Nonsensical (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/fred-reed/darwinism-is-nonsensical/)



http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/fred-reed/the-end-of-evolution/

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:47 PM
First of all, evolution is just mutations (insertions, deletions, proof reading errors etc) over a long period of time. Everybody believes DNA replication is not without errors and there are some many other ways the DNA will change after replication. This is essentially what is evolution. Separate a couple of twins (boy, girl) and put em on different islands and let em procreate and survive. After 100,000 years apart, the offspring may not even be able to mate with each other and that my friend is evolution. Some Christians may not want to say it because it doesn't against their belief but evolution is an undeniable fact. A fact which completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding who the POTUS is going to be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

Just a good evolution video I like posting in this sort of threads

There is a certain amount of variation built into the genetic code. That doesn't mean this variation can be extrapolated indefinitely. There are limits to how much a gene sequence can change before becoming completely useless. Most mutations lead to a loss of genetic information (the code) or simply scramble around the same information. Never has a mutation been observed that actually added completely new sequences, which would be necessary for an organism to add a completely new function that it did not already have the capacity for. This leaves no room for the concept of evolution because new information had to be added in order for a single-celled organism to develop into a more complex multi-celled organism. No genetic mutation has ever been observed to make an organism more complex. Even if it did, however, the sheer amount of information LOST in the vast majority of genetic mutations would rule out any possibility that that one mutation could lead to a significant development over time.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 01:48 PM
If you believe small changes in a small period of time, why is it so hard to believe in big changes in a long period of time? Thermodynamics and entropy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, there is no direction to evolution, it just happens. Sometimes it leads to smarter and more complex organism and other times it leads to dummer and simpler organisms. Both videos I posted talked about simpler organism evolving to more complex organisms we have today.

If you don't believe that thermodynamics has anything to do with it then I question your understanding of basic physics. The only way macroevolution might not violate the basic laws of physics is if you take the idea that entropy was reduced somewhere else to offset the entropy gained by an organism going from a lower form to a higher form. I learned that from my atheist physics professor. And there definitely is a direction in evolution. People use the "there is no direction" argument to try to get around the obvious problem of entropy. But any biologist worth spit knows that a multi celled organism is more complex than a single celled one.


Yes you did not say the cambrian explosion is proof of a supernatural intervention, but the lady scientist in the video did and I bet you that was the intent behind the video creation. We all of a sudden see an explosion in complex organisms in the fossil record without enough fossil record to draw up their evolutionary history. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the message they are trying to convey.

So? Your point is.....? I offered the video to rebut the silly notion that people talking about missing links just "don't understand" that evolution is about "small transitions". It's interesting that your video started with a discussion about Goofy....because that's what I think of the video.



I am not trying to shout anyone down, I would love to be in the middle ground on this but theory of evolution just like the theory of gravity has been confirmed.


The theory that life has evolved from simple organisms to more complex ones absolutely has not been confirmed. And gravity isn't considered a theory. It's considered a "law". It's the "law" of gravity. Your side tries to have if both ways. You want to say the "theory" of evolution is a "fact" when that's not how scientific terminology is used in any other area of science. Well...maybe with the exception of man made global warming. I keep hearing how that "theory" is really a "proven fact". The truth is that "theories" with political agendas behind them magically become "facts" without any rhyme or reason.



Evolution happens, it has been demonstrated by animal breeders, scientists, farmers etc etc. Sometimes I wonder why it is still called theory of gravity when we use everyday in aeronautics to make calculations that affect life and death when its still only a theory and not a law. You can compare it to global warming in the sense that carbondioxide is a green house gas. You can argue the overall impact of CO2 but you cannot argue that it is indeed a green house gas. The same way you cannot argue that evolution is not a fact.

In the 1970s these same scientists claimed CO2 was causing the earth to "cool". It can't both be a greenhouse gas and a refrigerant.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:48 PM
I don't think you understand me, mutation is a fact. I don't think anyone with a cursory knowledge of DNA replication doubts it. This is the base of all evolution, this is the reason why all your siblings don't look the identical even though they are your siblings. The video is just a sped up result of said mutation mixed with things like selective breeding, survival of the fittest etc and other worldly factors that pick which lineage survives.

Better believe it, evolution is a fact

Just because change occurs, that doesn't mean you can conclude that that change will continue indefinitely given enough time.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 01:54 PM
This and close thread. Creationists need the certainty provided by the bible. Scientists are just fine looking in the mirror and saying, "I don't know all the answers, but the evidence points to (fill in the blank)."

If scientific evidence pointed to a young earth and other such nonsense, scientists would change their tune. Thankfully, all the evidence points to the Earth forming from the remnants of the sun's creation some 4.3 billion years ago. Amino acids bouncing around the liquid surface joined together to create the first protein at some point. The rest is history.

Thankfully? Why are you thankful as to what the evidence points toward? Methinks you are letting your bias show.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 02:03 PM
Just because we don't have fossil evidence of the story pre Cambrian explosion doesn't mean someone put all the species on the earth and then pressed play for evolution to start. There is a lot of evidence that has been destroyed and a lot more that we are yet to discover. But at the end of the day, macro evolution is still a fact of life. There is no middle ground about it, it is not something to be debated. We can debate about what set the process in motion or where it started, but evolution is a fact.

A fact of life? Really? When has anyone ever encountered macro-evolution in their life? You can claim that all these tiny changes will continue indefinitely given enough time, but don't tell me macro-evolution is a fact OF LIFE, because that suggests that people have actually seen this happen or that it's scientific in some way. It's NOT science.

Change is a fact, but that same change continuing indefinitely over time? Not fact. Conjecture.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 02:05 PM
Again, macro evolution is just micro evolution over time. Believing in one necessitates that you believe in the other one. And what percentage of mutation do you think is lethal to humans? think of it like this, every sperm produced by your body has in its DNA an error every 10^9 to 10^11 nucleotide (out of about 32 billion nucleotide). And yet just about every single one of those sperms can fertilize an ova with just as much error/mutation in its DNA to produce a healthy baby. So yea for the most part, those mutations aren't very lethal. It can kill you when it comes to cancer but cancer rates are quite very low when you stack it against every form of mutation that happens to use everyday.


Come on, you can do better than that.

No, it doesn't! You really don't get how this works. If you observe a particular change, that change cannot be extrapolated to mean anything can turn in to anything else. This is an observable fact. What you are saying is the opposite of observable fact.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 02:09 PM
Scientists are sometimes just as biased as others. Agreed.

Weird that I rep you for assuming me naive. Heh...

No problem. It's all about the learning process. :p

And by the way, I never assumed you were naive. Saying there are absolutely no "authorities" in science is a naive statement. The government has its hand in everything, and yet some people seem to think science is this pure bastion of rational thought free from bias. Because government funding the teaching of evolution in public schools does not indicate an agenda at all...

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 02:11 PM
If you believe small changes in a small period of time, why is it so hard to believe in big changes in a long period of time? Thermodynamics and entropy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, there is no direction to evolution, it just happens. Sometimes it leads to smarter and more complex organism and other times it leads to dummer and simpler organisms. Both videos I posted talked about simpler organism evolving to more complex organisms we have today.

It may not be hard to believe, but this is not about belief. You can't just make assumptions like that and say "makes sense." Science doesn't work like that.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 02:30 PM
If you don't believe that thermodynamics has anything to do with it then I question your understanding of basic physics. The only way macroevolution might not violate the basic laws of physics is if you take the idea that entropy was reduced somewhere else to offset the entropy gained by an organism going from a lower form to a higher form. I learned that from my atheist physics professor. And there definitely is a direction in evolution. People use the "there is no direction" argument to try to get around the obvious problem of entropy. But any biologist worth spit knows that a multi celled organism is more complex than a single celled one.

I have to tell you that in my many years studying science, I have never ever encountered this idea before. It's something that is totally new to me. I think to myself, how can entropy affect DNA replication and I cannot come up with anything. I am going to read up on it and hopefully come back with a much better answer. But if you ask me, I would say that most organism are complex enough and capable enough to withstand changes in their internal and external environment. Ever heard of a thing called homeostasis?




So? Your point is.....? I offered the video to rebut the silly notion that people talking about missing links just "don't understand" that evolution is about "small transitions". It's interesting that your video started with a discussion about Goofy....because that's what I think of the video.

My problem with finding a missing link apart from the dozens of links we've already found is that one can never find the perfect link to connect any 2 species. These things take a lot of time and thousands of slightly different transitional species to make. There is no one link to look for. But regardless of the silly way the video started, I still recommend you give it a try. Cos if there is one thing about the video, its on it not being goofy



The theory that life has evolved from simple organisms to more complex ones absolutely has not been confirmed. And gravity isn't considered a theory. It's considered a "law". It's the "law" of gravity. Your side tries to have if both ways. You want to say the "theory" of evolution is a "fact" when that's not how scientific terminology is used in any other area of science. Well...maybe with the exception of man made global warming. I keep hearing how that "theory" is really a "proven fact". The truth is that "theories" with political agendas behind them magically become "facts" without any rhyme or reason.

There is a theory of gravity and the info below will explain


In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

So yes, evolution theory is a fact in the sense that we know that it happens and we can see it happen. Just culture a bunch of cells in the lab and then analyze the DNA afterwards and see what happens. The DNA is all of a sudden not identical to the original cell you cultured. That is evolution which is theory, now for why it happens? we do not know. I am sorry but that fact that it happens is not up for debate. Yes, evolution is non directional but since in hostile world where its eat or be eaten, organisms will develop into more complex and competitive organism. But its not because of evolution but because of natural selection. Less complex organism are also formed but they die off and are not able to procreate to sustain their non complex/competitive changes

Correction, we don't use theory of gravity to calculate anything.

givemeliberty2010
12-12-2014, 02:40 PM
I would go so far as to say that you can't be a libertarian unless you can agree to disagree on the creation/evolution debate (among other things).

That's like saying one cannot be a libertarian unless he or she agress to disagree about the earth being flat.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 02:49 PM
It may not be hard to believe, but this is not about belief. You can't just make assumptions like that and say "makes sense." Science doesn't work like that.

That was the most logical post I have made so far and you have a problem with it? I will try and say it again in the hope it makes more sense. We all know micro evolution occurs. I think you have agreed to it on a previous post. Now seeing as you agree that micro evol (small changes) occurs and if those small changes continue to occur unimpeded, it will lead to big change down the line. Mutation causes these changes and mutation happens(99.999%) all the time, nothing stops mutation from happening.

Seeing that change is inevitable and change albeit small ones if left to accumulate will lead to bigger changes, how can micro evolution not lead to macro evolution? There is no other way to put it.

Also when I say evolution, I am not talking about the big bang theory or origin of life on earth. Those ones are still being debated by all sides. Evolution in my basic crude definition is just changes in the genome, that is it.

givemeliberty2010
12-12-2014, 02:53 PM
Parents should teach their children whatever it is they truly believe. There is a whole world out their that wants to force their own ideas on kids. Bill Nye was on PBS? This is what PBS was teaching little kids.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hHdHlG-qIQ

That said, I believe in using the Socratic method of asking questions t teach important truths. I never taught my kids that communism was wrong. But when I had to explain to my son what communism is (he was doing a paper on W. E. B. Dubois and Dubois became a communist later in life) he at first thought it sounded like a good idea. Then I asked him "Would you want the government to say your house is too big for one family and that other families had to be allowed to move in too, or worse you had to move out to a much smaller house?" When I put it that way, he was against it. Another son, when hearing a commercial about an upcoming anti abortion law, was at first pro choice. He was all "It's the woman's body." I asked him if he knew about Margaret Sanger, the woman who started planned parenthood, and how she wrote in a book that black people should either be convinced to have abortions en masse or be forcibly sterilized and that considering the high rates of abortion among blacks and the fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are usually in black neighborhoods, the plan seems to be working. I also mentioned to him the black abortion doctor that was killing babies (mostly black) who survived the abortion and that his defense attorney argued that the killings weren't murder since it wouldn't have been murder if it had happened in the womb. To my pleasant surprise the next time the abortion issue came up on the radio he was staunchly pro life and I had never said anything about what God thinks about abortion or that abortion is wrong or immoral or whatever.

As for creation, I take them to church. I always have. I make no apologies for that. Learning "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" kind of goes with the territory. I expect atheist/evolutionist parents to take their children to functions where their beliefs are reinforced. Maybe it's a trip to the natural science museum. Maybe it's watching "Bill Nye the Science Guy Live!' But if you aren't doing anything for your children to somehow learn whatever it is you believe, you aren't doing your job IMO.

Yes, teach them what you believe, but only if you teach why you believe it and that other opinions are fine. And tell them about the other opinions. But don't try to explain them in your own words; opinions are best explained by their adherents, so teach children to be open-minded, seek other explanations and compare.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 02:59 PM
I have to tell you that in my many years studying science, I have never ever encountered this idea before. It's something that is totally new to me. I think to myself, how can entropy affect DNA replication and I cannot come up with anything. I am going to read up on it and hopefully come back with a much better answer. But if you ask me, I would say that most organism are complex enough and capable enough to withstand changes in their internal and external environment. Ever heard of a thing called homeostasis?

The general point on physics is that things tend to go from a higher state of order to a lower state of order. I'm shocked you've never run into this. Again I learned about this, and its connection to the evolution/creation debate at a public university. And yes I've heard of homeostatis and that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised.



My problem with finding a missing link apart from the dozens of links we've already found is that one can never find the perfect link to connect any 2 species. These things take a lot of time and thousands of slightly different transitional species to make. There is no one link to look for. But regardless of the silly way the video started, I still recommend you give it a try. Cos if there is one thing about the video, its on it not being goofy


I watched the video. It's goofy. What's goofy is the straw man argument that it makes. Also the problem isn't simply that there are "no in between fossils" but rather the abundance of fossils needed for the smooth transition that the video claims is there are missing.



There is a theory of gravity and the info below will explain


Yeah. Well nobody talks about the "law" of evolution or the "fact" of evolution except for people trying to win an argument on the internet. My point stands.

Occam's Banana
12-12-2014, 03:11 PM
That's like saying one cannot be a libertarian unless he or she agress to disagree about the earth being flat.

Yes, it is like saying that. So? :confused:

heavenlyboy34
12-12-2014, 03:13 PM
Cool. :cool: This thread is much more interesting than the last few on the evolution topic. Thnx, y'all. ~hugs~

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 03:14 PM
That was the most logical post I have made so far and you have a problem with it?

So now you're the judge of your own posts? I'm sorry if my view of your posts differ from your view of how logical your own posts are, but I am not exactly beholden to your assessment of yourself, am I?


I will try and say it again in the hope it makes more sense. We all know micro evolution occurs. I think you have agreed to it on a previous post. Now seeing as you agree that micro evol (small changes) occurs and if those small changes continue to occur unimpeded, it will lead to big change down the line. Mutation causes these changes and mutation happens(99.999%) all the time, nothing stops mutation from happening.

I know exactly what you mean and it makes perfect sense, but you're still wrong. If the changes occur unimpeded, they will lead to bigger changes, but you cannot simply assume that there is no limit to the amount of change that can happen within a genetic code. It's a non sequitur. Little changes amounting to bigger changes do not automatically amount to any change imaginable. That is why there is a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Because little changes in the genetic code that accounts for a cat changing into a different kind of cat does not serve as evidence that a cat can change into a cow.


Seeing that change is inevitable and change albeit small ones if left to accumulate will lead to bigger changes, how can micro evolution not lead to macro evolution? There is no other way to put it.

Like I said, it makes perfect sense, but it is still wrong. You are assuming that observable changes within certain limitations automatically leads to the conclusion that there are no limitations at all, that limitations do not exist. That is where you are wrong.


Also when I say evolution, I am not talking about the big bang theory or origin of life on earth. Those ones are still being debated by all sides. Evolution in my basic crude definition is just changes in the genome, that is it.

I understand that, but you are making a fatal assumption even when you confine it to the theory evolution pertaining to how organisms change over time. I'm not talking about those other things either, but I can still see the logical flaw in your argument. Why can't you?

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 03:17 PM
Yes, teach them what you believe, but only if you teach why you believe it and that other opinions are fine. And tell them about the other opinions. But don't try to explain them in your own words; opinions are best explained by their adherents, so teach children to be open-minded, seek other explanations and compare.

Actually you can teach them what you believe without teaching that other options are fine. Keep in mind, I'm saying this from a liberty perspective, not a parenting perspective. I'm not saying that's what parents should do. I'm saying that's what parents should be able to do.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 03:55 PM
I know exactly what you mean and it makes perfect sense, but you're still wrong. If the changes occur unimpeded, they will lead to bigger changes, but you cannot simply assume that there is no limit to the amount of change that can happen within a genetic code. It's a non sequitur. Little changes amounting to bigger changes do not automatically amount to any change imaginable. That is why there is a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Because little changes in the genetic code that accounts for a cat changing into a different kind of cat does not serve as evidence that a cat can change into a cow

If there is a limit, I don't think we have reached it. Have you ever wondered why human beings still have some genes that lizards have and use? or how they say humans share 60% and 99% of the genes with a banana and a chimp respectively? Its because we generally carry on the junk DNA that we no longer have any use for. Instead of deleting it, we turn it off. We carry so much junk DNA to the point where only a small fraction of the genes in our genome actually code for a protein.

So yes, there may be a limit (not likely) but we are not even close to reaching it. You believe in small changes over time right? so how about the possible of a cat and a cow originating over millions of years via small changes from an animal which is not cow or cat like? Remember, it's still going to use small changes which you believe in.

givemeliberty2010
12-12-2014, 04:01 PM
Yes, it is like saying that. So? :confused:I would never be comfortable with a political candidate who would deny that the Earth is round. And I wouldn't just "agree to disagree" on whether the Earth is spherical or flat; I would probably ridicule the belief, and I would definitely consider the fact as an indication of the person's level of intelligence in analyzing other issues that may come up.

heavenlyboy34
12-12-2014, 04:09 PM
I would never be comfortable with a political candidate who would deny that the Earth is round. And I wouldn't just "agree to disagree" on whether the Earth is spherical or flat; I would probably ridicule the belief, and I would definitely consider the fact as an indication of the person's level of intelligence in analyzing other issues that may come up.
The earth isn't round. It's almost sorta spherical. Your globe is just a mostly accurate representation of what the earth really looks like.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html

Is the Earth round?

The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.jpg This NASA image (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=885) shows Earth from space. The image is a combination of data from two satellites. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA’s Terra (http://terra.nasa.gov/) satellite collected the land surface data over 16 days, while NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/) (GOES) produced a snapshot of the Earth’s clouds.
While the Earth appears to be round when viewed from the vantage point of space, it is actually closer to an ellipsoid. However, even an ellipsoid does not adequately describe the Earth’s unique and ever-changing shape.
Our planet is pudgier at the equator than at the poles by about 70,000 feet. This is due to the centrifugal force created by the earth’s constant rotation. Mountains rising almost 30,000 feet and ocean trenches diving over 36,000 feet (compared to sea level (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.shtml)) further distort the shape of the Earth. Sea level itself is even irregularly shaped. Slight variations in Earth’s gravity field cause permanent hills and valleys in the ocean’s surface of over 300 feet relative to an ellipsoid.
Additionally, the shape of the Earth is always changing. Sometimes this change is periodic, as is the case with daily tides that affect both the ocean and the crust; sometimes the change is slow and steady, as with the drift of tectonic plates or the rebound of the crust after a heavy sheet of ice has melted; and sometimes the shape of the planet changes in violent, episodic ways during events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or meteor strikes.
The National Geodetic Survey (http://geodesy.noaa.gov) measures and monitors our ever-changing planet. Geodesy (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/geodesy.html) is the science of measuring and monitoring the size and shape of the Earth, including its gravity field, and determining the location of points on the Earth’s surface.


Geology FTW. :cool:

ETA: You would probably have a funny debate with the Flat Earth Society folks. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ They have forums and everything. :D

Occam's Banana
12-12-2014, 04:31 PM
I would never be comfortable with a political candidate who would deny that the Earth is round.

I didn't say or imply anything about what kinds of political candidates you should or shouldn't be comfortable with. That's got nothing to do with it.


And I wouldn't just "agree to disagree" on whether the Earth is spherical or flat; I would probably ridicule the belief, and I would definitely consider the fact as an indication of the person's level of intelligence in analyzing other issues that may come up.

I didn't say you have to agree with (let alone support) people like that in order to be a libertarian.
I said you have to be willing to agree to disagree with people like that in order to be a libertarian.

That is, after all, one of the essences of what it means to be a libertarian ...

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 04:37 PM
Yes, teach them what you believe, but only if you teach why you believe it and that other opinions are fine. And tell them about the other opinions. But don't try to explain them in your own words; opinions are best explained by their adherents, so teach children to be open-minded, seek other explanations and compare.

I agree.

juleswin
12-12-2014, 04:44 PM
I think I will post one last video on this. This one talks about the laws of evolution and answers a few of the questions some people have brought up in this discussion. This is the most convincing, most conclusive and more complete of them all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I

To Jimdrake, I did not say I have never heard of entropy, just that I have never heard it talked about in relation to cellular biology. I never thought the going on with DNA replication and protein synthesis had to account for entropy before going forward. Never have the 2 been mentioned in the same textbook ever in my life. But there is a first for everything and I am open minded enough to investigate.

jmdrake
12-12-2014, 04:45 PM
I didn't say or imply anything about what kinds of political candidates you should or shouldn't be comfortable with. That's got nothing to do with it.



I didn't say you have to agree with (let alone support) people like that in order to be a libertarian.
I said you have to be willing to agree to disagree with people like that in order to be a libertarian.

That is, after all, one of the essences of what it means to be a libertarian ...

^This. I'm a firm believe of the free marketplace of ideas and that the best way to counter bad information is with more good information. I actually liked Bill Nye before he became a jerk and started tying to tell other people what they should believe or what parents should teach their kids. Just put your information out there and see what happens. Evolutionists running around saying "fact this" and "law that" are really hurting their own cause.

Christian Liberty
12-12-2014, 04:58 PM
What does "agreeing to disagree" mean exactly? I've been told I have a hard time "agreeing to disagree" but all that means is I argue my points to death:p

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 05:35 PM
If there is a limit, I don't think we have reached it.

That statement assumes that macro-evolution has already been happening throughout history when you have no way of knowing this. My point is that you can't assume this. Then you back it up by saying you "don't think" we have reached it. Well, science really doesn't depend on your opinion, does it? What you think doesn't matter.


Have you ever wondered why human beings still have some genes that lizards have and use? or how they say humans share 60% and 99% of the genes with a banana and a chimp respectively? Its because we generally carry on the junk DNA that we no longer have any use for. Instead of deleting it, we turn it off. We carry so much junk DNA to the point where only a small fraction of the genes in our genome actually code for a protein.

Now you're going off on a completely different subject. Humans having similar characteristics as other live organisms does not mean one came from the other. It COULD mean that they have a common creator as opposed to a common ancestor. It makes sense that a creator would use the same methods and tools to make his creation because he has discovered what works. Notice I didn't say "God", I said creator because this applies to any creator.

And the fact that organisms have DNA sequences they don't really use doesn't imply evolution at all. In fact, that demonstrates a loss of genetic complexity, not a gain.


So yes, there may be a limit (not likely) but we are not even close to reaching it. You believe in small changes over time right? so how about the possible of a cat and a cow originating over millions of years via small changes from an animal which is not cow or cat like? Remember, it's still going to use small changes which you believe in.

Who are you to say how likely it is whether we have a limit or not? You can't possibly know this because you have absolutely no freaking clue where those boundaries might lie outside of what you already know. And once again, saying that we haven't reached a limit assumes the consequent of what you are saying, that every living organism is related to every other. If you say "we haven't reached a limit", then that assumes that you know where those limits lie, or at least where they don't lie, and the fact is that you have absolutely no clue where the limits might be.

You keep trying to prove to me that it's possible, but proving a possibility does not prove that it happened. I can't stress enough how I know EXACTLY what you are saying. I have heard it a million times and yet you are failing to see the logical fallacy with extrapolating a small change to mean there are no limits to that change. The limits are built into the genetic code. An amoeba cannot turn into a cat because it doesn't even have the genes responsible for the functions of a cat. A cat can change slightly to adapt to its environment by expressing a different nucleotide sequence that it already had, but that doesn't mean it can take on completely different functions with completely new genes and alleles. No matter how much a cat changes, it still functions like a cat and there is no observable, scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. Telling me that the little changes add up is just not scientific. You can't observe that.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 05:40 PM
I think I will post one last video on this. This one talks about the laws of evolution and answers a few of the questions some people have brought up in this discussion. This is the most convincing, most conclusive and more complete of them all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I

To Jimdrake, I did not say I have never heard of entropy, just that I have never heard it talked about in relation to cellular biology. I never thought the going on with DNA replication and protein synthesis had to account for entropy before going forward. Never have the 2 been mentioned in the same textbook ever in my life. But there is a first for everything and I am open minded enough to investigate.

That video is just telling a story about what they think could've happened based on the presupposed evolutionary framework. They don't have any actual evidence that "raccoons are basically dogs that still have hands." They're just making that shit up based on what seems plausible or believable.

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-12-2014, 05:59 PM
I'm surprised juleswin hasn't heard of the entropy argument. It's a common creationist canard to say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory. Thing is, it only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 06:05 PM
The kind of evolutionary story-telling that juleswin is espousing happens in 4 steps by asking the reader to suspend disbelief as the story of what possibly could have maybe happened is laid before them:

1) We show the reader that we can observe these small changes in animals happening scientifically.
2) We then show the reader two different animals and tell a story about how they kinda look like they might possibly be related, so that means these small changes could plausibly be responsible for the difference we see.
3) We then extrapolate that to make otherwise completely implausible comparisons seem plausible based on the false jump from observable changes to "it kinda looks like it could've happened" changes and add time so that the implausible suddenly seems more plausible because it is so far out of the realm of possibility to observe these changes that the reader accepts it as a possibility.
4) Masquerade the possibility as reality and refer back to step 1 when questioned.

So basically, point out an observable change and justify a belief in unobserved changes based on the observable ones, then justify a belief in the implausible changes by adding time and making it even more unobservable.

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 06:06 PM
I'm surprised juleswin hasn't heard of the entropy argument. It's a common creationist canard to say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory. Thing is, it only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not.

But the universe is.

The only energy that is added to the earth's system is sunlight, and sunlight is ALWAYS a destructive energy unless there is already a system in place, such as photosynthesis, that can harness the energy effectively. But that doesn't explain how plants developed that system in the first place.

Suzu
12-12-2014, 07:19 PM
The only energy that is added to the earth's system is sunlight, and sunlight is ALWAYS a destructive energy unless there is already a system in place, such as photosynthesis, that can harness the energy effectively. But that doesn't explain how plants developed that system in the first place.Therefore God?

rich34
12-12-2014, 07:32 PM
There are also major gaps in this: http://www.brain-fun.com/Brain-Teasers/EinsteinsRiddle.php

That doesn't mean that the answer isn't true.

I cite dogs again for evolution. We have watched them evolve before our eyes into different breeds that we created. It's not really complicated and there are no gaps. That is on a scale of about 1000 years that we have created poodles and dobermans. They trace back to ancient relatives and look nothing alike besides basic shape. It's an example of where evolution wasn't as random as it is in nature. Now, go back 100 million years at the least. That's that is 100,000x more time for all of natures species to evolve from already land dwelling mammals.

Dude a dog regardless of breed is still a dog. Just like humans regardless of breed are still human. Your understanding of "evolution" is way off track.

For instance have you ever seen a dog produce a totally new breed such as a cat? Of course not, but that would be considered evolution. In fact true evolution has never been scientifically documented. That alone will always be the reason the "theory" of evolution will ALWAYS be a "theory."

PaulConventionWV
12-12-2014, 07:43 PM
Therefore God?

Why don't you actually debate the points instead of hyperbolizing what I say. I just offered an argument for my side and all you have to defend your views is mockery? That doesn't look good for you.

And by the way, yes, that does suggest there was something other than natural processes involved, your ridiculous attempt to mock me notwithstanding.

rich34
12-12-2014, 07:51 PM
The earth isn't round. It's almost sorta spherical. Your globe is just a mostly accurate representation of what the earth really looks like.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html

Geology FTW. :cool:

ETA: You would probably have a funny debate with the Flat Earth Society folks. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ They have forums and everything. :D

People have known for thousands of years that the earth has never been flat. For instance, in the book of Job it says "the Lord set the world upon a sphere." Argue the source all you want, but the fact that this statement was indeed made by an individual approximatly 3,000 years ago simply proves just how much the populous was dumbed down during the midevil period. Hell look up the map Columbus used to sail to the "New World." Columbus in this case was no gambler, he found the map in the vatican library and knew exactly where he was sailing.

Suzu
12-12-2014, 09:43 PM
Why don't you actually debate the points instead of hyperbolizing what I say. I just offered an argument for my side and all you have to defend your views is mockery?
Your post didn't contain any debatable issue, IMO.


And by the way, yes, that does suggest there was something other than natural processes involved, your ridiculous attempt to mock me notwithstanding.

It almost goes without saying that most people will fill any gaps in scientific knowledge with God. How is asking whether you fit that stereotype any form of mockery?

Anti Federalist
12-12-2014, 10:29 PM
Haha WONDERFUL! The message of Freedom MUST be powerful -- where else will you find strict-interpretists atheists and strict-interpretists Christians in...AGREEMENT?? :eek:

There's something happening here -- when a movement can attract, Jews, White Supremacists, Atheists, Christians, Americans of African heritage, Latinos, etc etc....

just... WOW. :)

2007 FTW.

A shame we lost that...

givemeliberty2010
12-12-2014, 10:33 PM
I do not understand the assertion that, just because the universe may become more disordered on average, it cannot contain life forms that are sometimes becoming more ordered. Other things can become more ordered too. Human technology is more ordered now than it was centuries ago.

euphemia
12-12-2014, 11:38 PM
I think technology, by definition, is not a life form.

Occam's Banana
12-13-2014, 01:24 AM
People have known for thousands of years that the earth has never been flat. For instance, in the book of Job it says "the Lord set the world upon a sphere." Argue the source all you want, but the fact that this statement was indeed made by an individual approximatly 3,000 years ago simply proves just how much the populous was dumbed down during the midevil period.

The populace was not "dumbed down during the medieval period" - medievals did NOT believe that the Earth was flat.

The idea that they did is a myth with no factual basis whatsoever:

The Flat Earth Myth
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html
Tom Woods (13 July 2005)

In the course of promoting my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260387/lewrockwell/), I have made the point that major historians of science today no longer hold the simplistic position that "religion" has been nothing but an obstacle to "science." This contention doubtless comes as a surprise to some people, since most of us have gone through life hearing and being taught that very idea.

The standard view was given its classical expression by Andrew Dickson White (1832—1918) in his two-volume History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879758260/lewrockwell/) (1896). Yet it is safe to say that scarcely any serious historian of science today views White's work as anything but quaintly risible. (That doesn't stop hostile e-mail correspondents even now from dutifully quoting him to me, as if the past century's revolution in our understanding of the history of science had never occurred.) And while the claim of Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki that certain Christian theological ideas were indispensable to the rise of Western science (see, for instance, Jaki's discussion of inertial motion — and, indeed, his entire thesis — in Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081917839X/lewrockwell/)) has not become the dominant view, the opposite position — the one drilled into the heads of 99.9 percent of American students at all levels, from elementary school onward — has for all intents and purposes been abandoned.

This just can't be true, say my critics. After all, didn't the Church teach that the world was flat?

Actually, no. Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.

In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.

The two figures routinely cited by the myth peddlers are Lactantius (c. 245—325) and the early sixth-century Greek traveler and geographer Cosmas Indicopleustes. Lactantius was actually a Christian heretic who argued that God positively willed evil and who held a Manichaean worldview that posited Christ and Satan as equal but opposed creations of the one God. He believed that the pagan philosophers had no good arguments in favor of the earth as a sphere, and that since the Bible took no position one way or the other the issue was unimportant. At least some of his contrarianism in positing a flat earth can be attributed to his misplaced enthusiasm as an ex-pagan to contradict everything the pagans said. But he was in no way representative of the early Christian thinkers and his ideas appear to have had no influence.

Cosmas constructed an elaborate if peculiar model of the physical universe that portrayed the earth as flat. And even he did not intend his model to be taken as a literal description of how the cosmos was actually ordered. He thought of the physical universe in terms of an analogue to its spiritual meaning, rather in the way that Dante, much more elegantly, would later attempt in literature.

Cosmas' contemporary John Philoponus (490—570) sharply criticized his work. Whatever Cosmas' intentions, his great emphasis on physical detail certainly lent the impression that he aimed to construct an actual model of the cosmos. John Philoponus adopted the view of St. Augustine before him (and the view that would be expressed by Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas after him) that Christians should refrain from making statements about the physical world that were at odds with reason, since they would only bring their faith into contempt and disrepute.

Some scholars actually used to argue that the views of Cosmas Indicopleustes were responsible for the alleged edge-of-the-earth fears of fifteenth-century navigators, even though Cosmas was completely unknown in the fifteenth century. There were no Latin manuscripts of Cosmas in the Middle Ages at all. The first translation of his work into Latin was not undertaken until 1706. It is quite safe to say that Cosmas had absolutely no influence on anyone.

The fact is that the earth's sphericity was attested to by the overwhelming consensus of European Christian thinkers; the idea of a flat earth, to the extent it was raised at all, was positively ridiculed.

Most encyclopedias and reference works have mercifully deleted references to the flat earth from their discussions of Columbus, though they occasionally pop up even now, long after there could be any excuse for continuing to believe it. Textbooks, on the other hand, have been notoriously slow to correct the error, with the result that elementary, middle, and high school students are still being told (to quote one fifth-grade text) that at the time of Columbus "[m]any Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the earth." A prominent college text explains that the earth's sphericity, known to the ancient Greeks, was lost in the Middle Ages.

Even the occasional scholar of distinction can still be heard propagating the myth. John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics is on record as saying that during the age of discovery "[s]ome thought the world might be flat and you could fall off the edge, but the explorers went out and found what was truly there." Even the highly respected historian Daniel Boorstin repeated the myth in his 1983 book The Discoverers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394726251/lewrockwell/), arguing that from 300 A.D. through at least 1300, "Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers."

Andrew Dickson White, the fallen guru of the warfare-between-religion-and-science crowd, lent what prestige he had to the ludicrous falling-off-the-edge theory, which had no basis in fact whatsoever:


Many a bold navigator [wrote White], who was quite ready to brave pirates and tempests, trembled at the thought of tumbling with his ship into one of the openings into hell which a widespread belief placed in the Atlantic at some unknown distance from Europe. This terror among sailors was one of the main obstacles in the great voyage of Columbus.

David Lindberg, who is among the most accomplished modern historians of science, corrects the record:


In the usual story, theoretical dogma regarding a flat earth had to be overcome by empirical evidence for its sphericity. The truth is that the sphericity of the earth was a central feature of theoretical dogma as it came down to the Middle Ages — so central that no amount of contrary theoretical or empirical argumentation could conceivably have dislodged it.

European monarchs' initial hesitation to support Columbus's proposed expedition had nothing to do with the idea that the world was flat and Columbus might fall off the edge. It was precisely the accuracy of their knowledge of the earth that made them skeptical: they correctly concluded that Columbus had drastically underestimated the size of the earth, and that therefore he and his men would starve to death before they made it to the Indies. (Thankfully for them, of course, the Americas, which no one knew about, fortuitously appeared in between.)

The natural follow-up question to all this involves how the myth got started in the first place. It is only natural to look for its origins in the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, since a contempt for the medieval world could be found in both (though particularly in the latter). Yet the myth cannot be traced to either of these periods. Historian W.E.H. Lecky, a well-known nineteenth-century critic of the Catholic Church, was able as late as 1867 to discuss the views of Cosmas Indicopleustes without extrapolating from them to the idea that the Church fathers were flat earthers. The main criticism of men like Lecky and Charles Kingsley was that medieval scholasticism had been too much in thrall to the ideas of Aristotle. They couldn't very well accuse churchmen of being flat earthers, therefore, since Aristotle's position was that the earth was round.

The origins and story of the myth can be found in a useful little book (exclusive of notes and index, it is only 77 pages long) by Jeffrey Burton Russell called Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027595904X/lewrockwell/) (New York: Praeger, 1991).

Russell identifies several versions of the myth. The most absurd, since it shows no acquaintance with ancient Greek knowledge at all, contends that no one believed the earth was spherical until the age of discovery proved it. Another version admits that the Greeks knew of the earth's shape but alleges that this knowledge was lost, or perhaps deliberately suppressed during — you guessed it — the ignorant Middle Ages. Still another version has it that practically everyone, throughout all of history, believed that the earth was flat, with the exception of a few brilliant minds here and there like Aristotle and Ptolemy.

By Boorstin's time, says Russell, the myth "had been so firmly established that it was easier to lie back and believe it: easier not to check the sources; easier to fit the consensus; easier to fit the preconceived worldview; easier to avoid the discipline needed in order to dislodge a firmly held error." When Andrew Dickson White repeated the myth in the late nineteenth century, he based his position (as we can see in his notes) not on the original sources, of which he was largely ignorant, but on secondary sources that peddled the myth themselves.

Russell identifies two nineteenth-century villains as the primary sources of the myth: the American writer Washington Irving and (more significant) the French historian and polemicist Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787—1848). Irving's semi-historical, semi-fictional writing often blurred the distinction between fact and fiction, a distinction that was likewise unclear to his readers. Determined to portray Columbus as a romantic hero, Irving included in his History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006D977I/lewrockwell/) (1828) a fictional account of a council that allegedly lectured Columbus with the theories of Lactantius. The heroic Columbus, of course, resolutely resisted this attempt to persuade him of all this medieval foolishness.

As for Letronne, he received much of his academic training from men who propagated the standard Enlightenment canard about the ignorance of the Middle Ages. Although he conceded that a few theologians knew the earth was a sphere, Letronne put forth the idea that the vast bulk were foolish believers in a flat earth. The idea of the flat earth, he said, was the dominant one in Europe until the time of Columbus.

Uncritical acceptance of the myth was too tempting for many scholars, since it fit in so well with the caricature of Christianity they were already inclined to draw. "If Christians had for centuries insisted that the earth was flat against clear and available evidence," explains Russell, "they must be not only enemies of scientific truth, but contemptible and pitiful enemies."

The crime of the alleged believers in a flat earth was that they adopted a position on a matter of fact that was entirely contrary to the available evidence. Could not the same criticism be aimed at those who have argued, against all the textual evidence to the contrary, that Christians believed in a flat earth?

GunnyFreedom
12-13-2014, 01:42 AM
2007 FTW.

A shame we lost that...

It was all my fault. I wore the wrong shirt that one day. I am so sorry America. http://glenbradley.net/imghost/crybaby.gif

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 02:22 AM
Therefore God?

:rolleyes: No. Therefore "We don't know." Seriously, why does your side keep trying to argue inconsistent positions? On the one hand you say "Macro evolution is a proven fact that can't be debated." Then when the other side shows that's BS you fall back on the "Well that doesn't prove it was God" argument. That's silly. If you believe that macro evolution is a proven fact that can't be debated and that acceptance of micro evolution means you must believe in macro evolution, then you can't fall back on the "Well you still can't prove God" argument.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 02:24 AM
But the universe is.

The only energy that is added to the earth's system is sunlight, and sunlight is ALWAYS a destructive energy unless there is already a system in place, such as photosynthesis, that can harness the energy effectively. But that doesn't explain how plants developed that system in the first place.

^This

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 02:33 AM
I'm surprised juleswin hasn't heard of the entropy argument. It's a common creationist canard to say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory. Thing is, it only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not.

And that's the explanation my physics professor gave without bothering to explain how solar radiation somehow makes a single celled organism turn into a multi celled organism. (First step to more evolutionary complexity.) It's like evolutionist say "therefore sunlight" instead of "therefore God." And this underscores the point that I made earlier regarding my friend who believed in global warming but didn't know that CO2 was the main "greenhouse gas" people are yapping about. It's possible to disagree with someone about something they support and know more about aspects of it than they do.

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-13-2014, 05:57 AM
And that's the explanation my physics professor gave without bothering to explain how solar radiation somehow makes a single celled organism turn into a multi celled organism. (First step to more evolutionary complexity.) It's like evolutionist say "therefore sunlight" instead of "therefore God." And this underscores the point that I made earlier regarding my friend who believed in global warming but didn't know that CO2 was the main "greenhouse gas" people are yapping about. It's possible to disagree with someone about something they support and know more about aspects of it than they do.
No one is positing that there is a causal relationship between solar radiation and speciation. The argument was that entropy makes evolution impossible, but entropy only applies to closed systems; the Earth is not a closed system. You and others who bring up AGW as a parallel are committing one big equivocation. Also, why would you ask your physics professor about something pertaining to cellular biology is beyond me.

Ronin Truth
12-13-2014, 06:35 AM
I totally reject the false dichotomy. The options for life on planet Earth absolutely DO NOT boil down to ONLY "creationism" OR "evolution".

C'mon folks, what are the best fits theories for the existing situations, facts and evidence. (HINT: No, it ain't MAGIC.)

CPUd
12-13-2014, 06:45 AM
http://i.imgur.com/bkgzwzw.gif

http://i.imgur.com/7LWTZo4.gif

http://i.imgur.com/VcxHsEk.gif

http://i.imgur.com/dkK8s3J.jpg

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:53 AM
Your post didn't contain any debatable issue, IMO.

You're just deflecting the question, trying to avoid having to make a rational response. So that gives you free range to just mock people and make no argument? I think you and I both know what you're doing here. You're avoiding the argument because you know you would lose.


It almost goes without saying that most people will fill any gaps in scientific knowledge with God. How is asking whether you fit that stereotype any form of mockery?

Ok, I think I get it. Instead of saying "Therefore, God", we should say, "Therefore, primordial ooze." Yeah, makes total sense.

You weren't asking me anything. You were mocking me by saying, "Therefore God" in a mocking fashion when the exact same hyperbole could be applied to your position. Just because we don't understand it, it doesn't mean we should assume only natural explanations, especially when it comes to debates about origins. I was simply bringing up the point that natural processes doesn't seem to explain the Earth's thermodynamics system, and you automatically leap to a straw man about assuming the supernatural.

Note that I did NOT assume anything in my post. Instead, you exposed your bias and assumed that any explanation should leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention. Why?

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:58 AM
I do not understand the assertion that, just because the universe may become more disordered on average, it cannot contain life forms that are sometimes becoming more ordered. Other things can become more ordered too. Human technology is more ordered now than it was centuries ago.

Because we humans, already ordered systems, put energy into it in a controlled fashion. The problem is, how did humans get here in the first place if the universe, a closed system, was running down from the very beginning? There were no humans around in the beginning, so who did that?

Plants are the only living things that can harness the power of sunlight, but the same question arises with them. How did the Earth acquire order before plants if sunlight is a destructive force without them?

Whenever we see other things left in the sun for long periods of time, they deteriorate and decay. Plants thrive in sunlight and we get the energy from plants by eating them or by eating animals that eat them. But without plants and humans, how did the world develop order? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question, but they seem ready enough to mock people who suggest it points toward something other than natural processes because that can't even be considered in their view.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:10 AM
And that's the explanation my physics professor gave without bothering to explain how solar radiation somehow makes a single celled organism turn into a multi celled organism. (First step to more evolutionary complexity.) It's like evolutionist say "therefore sunlight" instead of "therefore God." And this underscores the point that I made earlier regarding my friend who believed in global warming but didn't know that CO2 was the main "greenhouse gas" people are yapping about. It's possible to disagree with someone about something they support and know more about aspects of it than they do.

"Therefore, the world developed naturally with no help because sunlight."

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:12 AM
No one is positing that there is a causal relationship between solar radiation and speciation. The argument was that entropy makes evolution impossible, but entropy only applies to closed systems; the Earth is not a closed system. You and others who bring up AGW as a parallel are committing one big equivocation. Also, why would you ask your physics professor about something pertaining to cellular biology is beyond me.

I already answered this. The Earth is not a closed system, but the universe IS. Also, the only energy we receive from outer space regularly is sunlight, and sunlight is destructive without assuming the existence of plants to control the energy.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:15 AM
I totally reject the false dichotomy. The options for life on planet Earth absolutely DO NOT boil down to ONLY "creationism" OR "evolution".

C'mon folks, what are the best fits theories for the existing situations, facts and evidence. (HINT: No, it ain't MAGIC.)

It's very simple. Either something, be it God or something else, MADE the universe and everything in it... or the universe made ITSELF. There are no other options. The dichotomy is not false. There are varying explanations as to what processes were involved, but that's beside the point. This whole debate about creation vs evolution is really about whether the universe was made or it made itself. There simply is no other way for the universe to exist.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 08:22 AM
No one is positing that there is a causal relationship between solar radiation and speciation. The argument was that entropy makes evolution impossible, but entropy only applies to closed systems; the Earth is not a closed system. You and others who bring up AGW as a parallel are committing one big equivocation. Also, why would you ask your physics professor about something pertaining to cellular biology is beyond me.

No. That's NOT THE ARGUENT! That's a fake straw man you made up and that is dishonest. The argument is that the entropy issue means that evolution isn't a proven fact. I was arguing against someone who claimed it was a proven fact. His view was that if you believed in micro evolution you must believe in macro evolution. So quit lying.

Also I didn't ask the physics professor about micro biology. He went into the subject of evolution on his own when covering the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So quit assuming.

Also, as has been pointing out, the universe is not a closed system. And you can't just throw in some "It's an open system" pixie dust to get around the problem. If that were the case then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would never apply. In all situations where it might, someone could say "Well we don't live in a closed system."

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 08:38 AM
Your post didn't contain any debatable issue, IMO.

His post contained a debatable issue that you lack the skill to debate, IMO. It is a very valid point. The second law of thermodynamics causes a problem for evolution. Evolutionist take a cop out by saying "sunlight" without providing any evidence that just throwing in some external solar energy will cause single celled organisms to become multicelled or providing any evidence that solar radiation will convert primordial soup into life. Get a petri dish, fill it with all of the elements essential to life, keep it in a sealed sterile container, blast it with UV rays for as long as you want, and call me when you the first bit of phytoplankton evolves.



It almost goes without saying that most people will fill any gaps in scientific knowledge with God. How is asking whether you fit that stereotype any form of mockery?

Non sequitur. You've filled in a gap in scientific knowledge with "the sun" based on as much faith as someone who says "God". Well...a little less I suppose. You can see the sun. Again, what you and "ThePaletoLibertarian" are ignoring is the point of debate being raised. Neither I nor PaulConventionWV have said the entropy issue means evolution must be false or that God must exist. What we are saying is that it is stupid to say that if you believe in micro evolution you must believe in macro evolution without dealing with the holes in macro evolution. If you want to say evolution is a good theory then the burden of proof is on creationists to prove that it isn't. But if you want to say that evolution is a proven fact then you have shifted the burden of proof onto yourself. And you and everyone else on your side in this thread have failed miserably to meet that burden of proof.

Ronin Truth
12-13-2014, 09:10 AM
It's very simple. Either something, be it God or something else, MADE the universe and everything in it... or the universe made ITSELF. There are no other options. The dichotomy is not false. There are varying explanations as to what processes were involved, but that's beside the point. This whole debate about creation vs evolution is really about whether the universe was made or it made itself. There simply is no other way for the universe to exist.

Ahem. A careful REREADING for comprehension will show that I didn't even mention the universe.

The thread subject is life on Earth. The dichotomy is indeed false.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 09:39 AM
Ahem. A careful REREADING for comprehension will show that I didn't even mention the universe.

The thread subject is life on Earth. The dichotomy is indeed false.

The dichotomy is irrelevant really. I have no problem with the possibility that Darwin may have been right and that life evolved from single celled organisms. That's a fine theory. But the other side has a problem admitting it is a theory. And while I believe in God, I accept that my belief is faith and it's possible that God doesn't exist or that God is more like the pantheon of pagan religions than the Elohim of the Bible. That said, evolution as the explanation for man came into being is incompatible with the Bible as written. I'm not simply talking about Genesis, but also the entire New Testament. Now some people wish to reject the Bible as written and that's their right to do so. Evolution does fit nicely with Hinduism and the idea of reincarnation leading to higher and higher forms of life. The Christian idea of mankind created perfect and to live forever, but falling under the curse of sin and death through disobedience? Not so much.

KingNothing
12-13-2014, 10:59 AM
Plants are the only living things that can harness the power of sunlight, but the same question arises with them. How did the Earth acquire order before plants if sunlight is a destructive force without them?



Why do you say so much bombastic shit that is just not true?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101221-solar-power-hornet-science-animals/

http://www.livescience.com/22558-aphid-light-energy-plant.html

Stop being so certain of the things you think you know. Time and time again, you provide all of us with ample evidence that you are not as informed or intelligent as you think you are.

This is to say nothing of the complete bastardization of the concept of entropy that you and others are pushing. These comments are just groan-inducing.

KingNothing
12-13-2014, 11:05 AM
The Earth is not a closed system, but the universe IS.

Citation needed. It is a valid assumption to make, but no one knows for sure. All of this is conjecture.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 02:40 PM
Ahem. A careful REREADING for comprehension will show that I didn't even mention the universe.

The thread subject is life on Earth. The dichotomy is indeed false.

You may not have been talking about "the universe", but you did mention "creation vs evolution", and I'm saying that's what this issue really boils down to. It's not just about the processes of change on earth, contrary to what some people say. It's about a guided process in a created system versus an unguided one in a spontaneously existing system.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 02:45 PM
Why do you say so much bombastic shit that is just not true?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101221-solar-power-hornet-science-animals/

http://www.livescience.com/22558-aphid-light-energy-plant.html

Stop being so certain of the things you think you know. Time and time again, you provide all of us with ample evidence that you are not as informed or intelligent as you think you are.

This is to say nothing of the complete bastardization of the concept of entropy that you and others are pushing. These comments are just groan-inducing.

Oh God, not you again.

Who lifted your ban?

You're going to hassle me over little details like a bug that "acts like a plant"? Who cares if I left that insignificant detail out?

That was never the point! The point is that all these living things already have systems in place to harness the power of sunlight. Without living things, though, sunlight is useless.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 02:48 PM
Citation needed. It is a valid assumption to make, but no one knows for sure. All of this is conjecture.

Fair enough, and basically the first fair point I've ever seen you make, but it is true for all intents and purposes because to speculate that life came from beyond the universe is, well, silly.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:17 PM
:rolleyes: No. Therefore "We don't know." Seriously, why does your side keep trying to argue inconsistent positions? On the one hand you say "Macro evolution is a proven fact that can't be debated." Then when the other side shows that's BS you fall back on the "Well that doesn't prove it was God" argument. That's silly. If you believe that macro evolution is a proven fact that can't be debated and that acceptance of micro evolution means you must believe in macro evolution, then you can't fall back on the "Well you still can't prove God" argument.

I didn't say what you say I said. I just asked him a question. I don't understand your post and don't even understand what side you think I'm on in this issue.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 03:19 PM
I didn't say what you say I said. I just asked him a question. I don't understand your post and don't even understand what side you think I'm on in this issue.

Fine. Clear it up for me then. You said "Therefore God?" when he hadn't said that. So your point was....?

Edit: You also said

Your post didn't contain any debatable issue, IMO.

In response to his point regarding that solar radiation is always destructive to life except for photosynthesis therefore it being added to the equation doesn't solve the entropy question. So do you say his point is not debatable because you agree with him....or...?

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:25 PM
You're just deflecting the question, trying to avoid having to make a rational response. So that gives you free range to just mock people and make no argument? I think you and I both know what you're doing here. You're avoiding the argument because you know you would lose.

No, I just wanted to know how you felt about the issue. I don't care to argue the matter and I don't care what the "right" answer is.


Ok, I think I get it. Instead of saying "Therefore, God", we should say, "Therefore, primordial ooze." Yeah, makes total sense.

No, you don't get it. I had no such idea.


You weren't asking me anything. You were mocking me by saying, "Therefore God" in a mocking fashion when the exact same hyperbole could be applied to your position. Just because we don't understand it, it doesn't mean we should assume only natural explanations, especially when it comes to debates about origins. I was simply bringing up the point that natural processes doesn't seem to explain the Earth's thermodynamics system, and you automatically leap to a straw man about assuming the supernatural.

You may have heard "mocking" but I didn't put it there. You're the one doing the interpretation.


Note that I did NOT assume anything in my post. Instead, you exposed your bias and assumed that any explanation should leave out the possibility of supernatural intervention. Why?

Because I don't believe in "magic".

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:28 PM
Fine. Clear it up for me then. You said "Therefore God?" when he hadn't said that. So your point was....?
I wanted to feel him out on the the matter.



Edit: You also said

Your post didn't contain any debatable issue, IMO.

In response to his point regarding that solar radiation is always destructive to life except for photosynthesis therefore it being added to the equation doesn't solve the entropy question. So do you say his point is not debatable because you agree with him....or...?

To the extent that I've considered it, yes, I agree with him on that point.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:36 PM
It's very simple. Either something, be it God or something else, MADE the universe and everything in it... or the universe made ITSELF. There are no other options. The dichotomy is not false. There are varying explanations as to what processes were involved, but that's beside the point. This whole debate about creation vs evolution is really about whether the universe was made or it made itself. There simply is no other way for the universe to exist.

I don't think it's that simple, and I don't agree with your presupposition that the universe was "made", which implies a "maker". Just consider this one point: For there to be a "maker", that "maker" must first of all exist. But there is no existence outside of the MEST universe. So there you have a contradiction right off the bat. Then if you can find a way around that rather formidable obstacle, you have to answer "who or what made the maker", and this has to go on ad infinitum because there's always going to be the maker of the maker of the maker of the maker.

So tell me again why there can't be any other options.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:49 PM
Sometimes I wonder why it is still called theory of gravity when we use everyday in aeronautics to make calculations that affect life and death when its still only a theory and not a law.
You're wrong about this. Gravity is a law.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 03:55 PM
The theory that life has evolved from simple organisms to more complex ones absolutely has not been confirmed.

You can't seriously believe this statement... smh.


I keep hearing how that "theory" is really a "proven fact".

Guess you missed my earlier response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?58663-Ron-Paul-Doesn-t-Accept-Evolution&p=5727042#post5727042) on this point.

scrosnoe
12-13-2014, 04:01 PM
Creation is a fact. It happened.

Evolution is one theory about how it happened. Genesis 1 recounts another explanation for creation and how it occurred.

You get to choose which explanation you believe.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 04:21 PM
Creation is a fact. It happened.

Evolution is one theory about how it happened. Genesis 1 recounts another explanation for creation and how it occurred.

You get to choose which explanation you believe.

Sandie, evolution isn't a theory about how creation happened. Wow.

Jamesiv1
12-13-2014, 04:25 PM
couldn't God have created the universe and evolution is part of the deal?

did someone mention that already? lol

why does it have to be either/or?

Natural Citizen
12-13-2014, 04:31 PM
why does it have to be either/or?

Because man cannot and will not ever escape his infantile need for centrality. :)

Suzu
12-13-2014, 04:47 PM
But the other side has a problem admitting [evolution] is a theory.

Actually, those who understand evolution, beyond having no problem admitting it's a theory, are ecstatic about the fact that it's a theory!

Ronin Truth
12-13-2014, 05:19 PM
You may not have been talking about "the universe", but you did mention "creation vs evolution", and I'm saying that's what this issue really boils down to. It's not just about the processes of change on earth, contrary to what some people say. It's about a guided process in a created system versus an unguided one in a spontaneously existing system.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=logic+false+dichotomy&gbv=2&oq=logic+false+dichot&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0.64133563.64150282.0.64156141.18.11.0.7.7. 0.234.1733.0j1j7.8.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.15.1904.WKeCozhJdgs

Natural Citizen
12-13-2014, 05:22 PM
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=logic+false+dichotomy&gbv=2&oq=logic+false+dichot&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0.64133563.64150282.0.64156141.18.11.0.7.7. 0.234.1733.0j1j7.8.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.15.1904.WKeCozhJdgs


I hate when you do that.

juleswin
12-13-2014, 05:31 PM
You're wrong about this. Gravity is a law.

Yes, there are laws backing the theory of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity best describes it and that is not a typo, I said theory. Look it up. We know that matter attracts matter, we even know the formula to calculate the force between 2 objects, but why does the attractive force exist between 2 pieces of matter? There are theories explaining it and that I believe is the theory of gravity.

The same applies to theory of evolution. We know that organisms do not produce identical copies of each other, we even know how this happens and it can be demonstrated by anybody who can culture bacteria and analyze its DNA, animal breeders and just about anybody who has observed wildlife. That these changes occur is a fact and is not in dispute. Some people prefer to just believe that what I just explained is fact of micro-evolution without really explaining why this slow, continuous process somehow stops being true if you fast-worded the world

I guess its still called theory since there is no mathematical formula to calculate evolution. I don't really know cos it's not like we don't know why it happens.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 05:54 PM
I guess its still called theory since there is no mathematical formula to calculate evolution. I don't really know cos it's not like we don't know why it happens.
Let me state this one more time: The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Ronin Truth
12-13-2014, 06:13 PM
I hate when you do that.

And I should care about that, why?

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 06:36 PM
I didn't say what you say I said. I just asked him a question. I don't understand your post and don't even understand what side you think I'm on in this issue.

Seriously, be honest. "Therefore God?" is a sarcastic comment, not a genuine question.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 06:41 PM
No, I just wanted to know how you felt about the issue. I don't care to argue the matter and I don't care what the "right" answer is.



No, you don't get it. I had no such idea.



You may have heard "mocking" but I didn't put it there. You're the one doing the interpretation.



Because I don't believe in "magic".

Oh, come on. You're not mocking me, and yet you think I believe in "magic"?

Natural causes can't explain everything in this world. What we observe is only part of the universe. Therefore, since we don't know it all, we can't rule out supernatural causes, especially when it comes to origins. It has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with admitting that you can't know everything through science.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 06:54 PM
I don't think it's that simple, and I don't agree with your presupposition that the universe was "made", which implies a "maker". Just consider this one point: For there to be a "maker", that "maker" must first of all exist. But there is no existence outside of the MEST universe. So there you have a contradiction right off the bat. Then if you can find a way around that rather formidable obstacle, you have to answer "who or what made the maker", and this has to go on ad infinitum because there's always going to be the maker of the maker of the maker of the maker.

So tell me again why there can't be any other options.

I didn't presuppose anything. I gave you two options. Either the universe was made or it made itself. And the fact that it implies a maker IS THE WHOLE POINT! Either there was a maker or there wasn't a maker. Those are the only two options.

What is a MEST universe? How do you know there is no existence outside of it?

Be advised that we are leaving science at this time and going into philosophy, and I will tell you what I think about that. The problem you bring up is not exclusive to the "maker" theory. The problem exists even if you believe the universe had no maker. "Who created the universe if there was no maker?" is the same question as "Who created the maker?" So that is where the fundamental divide is: either there was a maker or there wasn't one.

I answer the maker question by insisting that the intelligent maker is infinite and that the universe is finite. This is backed up by the fact that everything in the universe does appear to be finite. Since everything in the universe has a cause, that means there had to be an original cause. I attribute that original cause to an infinite being who is not subject to time, matter, or space. I find this easier to defend than the idea that the original cause can be attributed to absolutely nothing. Since the maker is infinite, he does not need another maker. The universe is finite, so it does need a maker because it cannot have existed forever.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:03 PM
couldn't God have created the universe and evolution is part of the deal?

did someone mention that already? lol

why does it have to be either/or?

Yes, people have mentioned that several times. Don't go thinking you're special.

The elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit is there, is that this whole "evolution vs creation" debate is about creator vs. no creator. Since the "creator" theory implies a God who might have rules, this chaps some people's hides. The "evolution" side is really just a way to try to explain human existence and the history of the world without needing a creator.

No evolutionist wants to admit this because they want to muddy the waters and avoid "the big question" (who made the universe) by spoon-feeding them this theory so that they grow accustomed to the idea of history without causes, the idea that everything happened by chance and no creator was needed. And with the government-funded schools feeding this to our children, voila! They had a propaganda machine that churned out mobs of little evolutionists who grew up believing there was no purpose in life.

Does anyone ever wonder why the government funds the teaching of evolution and it's always assumed to be the truth on the media? Is it any wonder with the government's hand in science and education that we have a system seemingly dominated by one particular worldview? The government has funded your indoctrination so that you grew up to believe in evolution and your absolute faith in this idea is fueled by society's reinforcement and your tendency to want it to be true.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:05 PM
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=logic+false+dichotomy&gbv=2&oq=logic+false+dichot&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0.64133563.64150282.0.64156141.18.11.0.7.7. 0.234.1733.0j1j7.8.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.15.1904.WKeCozhJdgs

If it's a false dichotomy, then show me another option. It's only false if you can demonstrate that there is a third option. If you can't, then it's not.

That's how false dichotomies work. Look it up.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:06 PM
I hate when you do that.

It is rather juvenile, isn't it?

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:08 PM
And I should care about that, why?

If you want to say something, just say it.

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-13-2014, 07:16 PM
I already answered this. The Earth is not a closed system, but the universe IS. Also, the only energy we receive from outer space regularly is sunlight, and sunlight is destructive without assuming the existence of plants to control the energy.
What a bizarre argument. The universe is a thermodynamic closed system; the energy within it is being slowly used up, and this process will eventually destroy it. Earth on the other hand has plenty of outside energy that reduces localized entropy and allows life to become more complicated. Entropy still occurs, but the outside energy reduces it locally. You can say that sunlight is "destructive" by some standard I suppose, but that says nothing about what it does to local entropy on Earth. This strikes me as a big case of cognitive dissonance in the mind of the creationist. The line that creationists use these days is that they "believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution". People knowledgeable about the science know that there is no distinction between the two except time, but I digress. The thing is, a local slowing of entropy is needed for "microevolution". Creationists either need to admit that the Sun does slow local entropy and therefore evolution doesn't violate the second law, or go back to rejecting "microevolution".

Suzu
12-13-2014, 07:21 PM
Seriously, be honest. "Therefore God?" is a sarcastic comment, not a genuine question.

I am. There are in fact people less acerbic than you are.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 07:25 PM
Oh, come on. You're not mocking me, and yet you think I believe in "magic"?

You've put more words in my mouth here. I did not say that I think you believe in magic. You asked my why I would leave out the possibility of a supernatural explanation, and I told you why.


It has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with admitting that you can't know everything through science.
I agree that we don't know, not that we can't know, everything through science.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:29 PM
I am. There are in fact people less acerbic than you are.

I don't buy it. "Therefore God?" is not a genuine question. It's just not. You've been here long enough to know better than to post a sarcastic comment and then act like it's genuine. The question would have more words if it was genuine.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 07:34 PM
I didn't presuppose anything. I gave you two options. Either the universe was made or it made itself. And the fact that it implies a maker IS THE WHOLE POINT! Either there was a maker or there wasn't a maker. Those are the only two options.
No they are not. Your assumption is that nothing exists unless it was "made". That has not been proven.


What is a MEST universe? How do you know there is no existence outside of it?

To exist requires that very definition of "existence" -- matter, energy, space, time -- be present. Outside of these, no thing can "exist".


Since everything in the universe has a cause, that means there had to be an original cause.

There you go again with another unproven claim.


I attribute that original cause to an infinite being who is not subject to time, matter, or space. I find this easier to defend than the idea that the original cause can be attributed to absolutely nothing. Since the maker is infinite, he does not need another maker. The universe is finite, so it does need a maker because it cannot have existed forever.

Your preference for this explanation does not make it true. It could be true, but we can't claim that it is, until and unless it can be so proved. Which it has not been.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:36 PM
What a bizarre argument. The universe is a thermodynamic closed system; the energy within it is being slowly used up, and this process will eventually destroy it. Earth on the other hand has plenty of outside energy that reduces localized entropy and allows life to become more complicated. Entropy still occurs, but the outside energy reduces it locally. You can say that sunlight is "destructive" by some standard I suppose, but that says nothing about what it does to local entropy on Earth. This strikes me as a big case of cognitive dissonance in the mind of the creationist. The line that creationists use these days is that they "believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution". People knowledgeable about the science know that there is no distinction between the two except time, but I digress. The thing is, a local slowing of entropy is needed for "microevolution". Creationists either need to admit that the Sun does slow local entropy and therefore evolution doesn't violate the second law, or go back to rejecting "microevolution".

I've already debunked both of those points. They're false. But let me hit you with the truth one more time on that entropy thing you don't seem to be getting.

The only way sunlight is not destructive is through photosynthesis, and this requires plants. But go back before plants existed, and how did the energy from sunlight get used? Some living thing has to exist in order for sunlight to be used. Show me ONE instance in which sunlight that is not utilized by living things is not destructive. Only living things can use sunlight, so how can sunlight be responsible for the creation of living things?

Suzu
12-13-2014, 07:39 PM
The question would have more words if it was genuine.

There are also people *more* laconic than you.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 07:52 PM
You've put more words in my mouth here. I did not say that I think you believe in magic. You asked my why I would leave out the possibility of a supernatural explanation, and I told you why.

You said that you disagree with me because you don't believe in magic. Is this or is this not correct? Do I have to break everything down into its simplest form and spoonfeed it to you? You basically said I believe in magic by implying that the basis of your disagreement with me was the fact that you "don't believe in magic."


I agree that we don't know, not that we can't know, everything through science.

Well, you'd be wrong there, too. Science commits the logical fallacy of induction. Induction is the process of observing a specific object or event and drawing a universal conclusion from it. Since we cannot observe everything, especially the past or the future, then we cannot possibly know everything through science because neither the past nor the future can be observed.

Do you agree with this statement: There are things that we can neither observe nor test, that are nonetheless true?

juleswin
12-13-2014, 08:00 PM
All this talk about entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics and nobody has yet to post what definition they are using for both.

2nd law of thermodynamics states that "In any closed system (sometimes referred to as isolated system), the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase"

Entropy - A measure (which sorta means probability) of the disorder or randomness in a closed system

But since we are talking about an open system not a closed one, why is anyone talking about entropy in an evolution debate? what is the point?

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:00 PM
No they are not. Your assumption is that nothing exists unless it was "made". That has not been proven.

So you're saying the third option is that we don't exist at all?


To exist requires that very definition of "existence" -- matter, energy, space, time -- be present. Outside of these, no thing can "exist".

No, existence does not require matter, energy, space, or time. Prove that it does. You're basically saying that nothing can exist without being finite. Well, if that's true, then when did this finite existence begin? Infinity ago? That's impossible.


There you go again with another unproven claim.

This is one of the core issues of philosophy. Every philosopher agrees that you cannot have an infinite string of causes, or in other words, an infinite string of finite events. A finite world cannot simultaneously be finite and infinite at the same time.


Your preference for this explanation does not make it true. It could be true, but we can't claim that it is, until and unless it can be so proved. Which it has not been.

Sure, and I admit that I cannot prove this to be true, but how does that make your side any more true? Why should I assume that your version is true until I find evidence (evidence which cannot be found) for my version?

Why should we simply assume that your version is accurate when neither of us knows either way?

Republicanguy
12-13-2014, 08:05 PM
Mr Paul is an old guy from a different time, this is quite an old thread.

I watched this via the Guardian Newspaper's site, the former Commander Chris Hadfield, the commander of the International space station mentioned these comments, and it hit me about the idea of religion and a diety. It really touches the narrow mind of people, but ultimately when people are brought up with myth then the link can't be broken easily.

http://youtu.be/j4vFNf90zL4?t=7m16s

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:05 PM
There are also people *more* laconic than you.

You cannot seriously believe what you say. "Therefore God?" is not a serious question. Just fucking admit it.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:09 PM
All this talk about entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics and nobody has yet to post what definition they are using for both.

2nd law of thermodynamics states that "In any closed system (sometimes referred to as isolated system), the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase"

Entropy - A measure (which sorta means probability) of the disorder or randomness in a closed system

But since we are talking about an open system not a closed one, why is anyone talking about entropy in an evolution debate? what is the point?

Because that doesn't completely answer the question. You can't just say the system is open and leave it at that. We happen to know that the only energy that comes into this system is sunlight. That sunlight is destructive unless it is used by living things via photosynthesis. How, then, can sunlight be responsible for the creation of the living things that use it if it is otherwise destructive without the living things to use it?

Natural Citizen
12-13-2014, 08:11 PM
And I should care about that, why?

If you have something to say or a question for someone with regard to something that they have posted in contribution to the topic, just say it or ask it. Gosh.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:11 PM
Mr Paul is an old guy from a different time, this is quite an old thread.

I watched this via the Guardian Newspaper's site, the former Commander Chris Hadfield, the commander of the International space station mentioned these comments, and it hit me about the idea of religion and a diety. It really touches the narrow mind of people, but ultimately when people are brought up with myth then the link can't be broken easily.

http://youtu.be/j4vFNf90zL4?t=7m16s

Young people believe this stuff, too. And it's not because we've been indoctrinated. In fact, the public school system spends all of its precious resources indoctrinating us with the opposite view, so if anyone's indoctrinated, it's the evolutionists.

juleswin
12-13-2014, 08:22 PM
Because that doesn't completely answer the question. You can't just say the system is open and leave it at that. We happen to know that the only energy that comes into this system is sunlight. That sunlight is destructive unless it is used by living things via photosynthesis. How, then, can sunlight be responsible for the creation of the living things that use it if it is otherwise destructive without the living things to use it?

Maybe the evolution an organism hiding from the sunlight somehow developed new ability to enable it harness the energy from the sun? But that is not the debate. The question is still about evolution and whether it is a fact or not. I say it is a fact that organisms have evolved, are evolving and will continue to evolve as long as cell division continues to happen they way they divide today.

Natural Citizen
12-13-2014, 08:25 PM
Young people believe this stuff, too.

Presentation caters to youth in classrooms. Here are a couple of good examples of the arts used to teach or to stimulate an idea or path of reason by way of harnessing the natural excitement to learn that youth have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&list=PLWS2mFp_C6rPXhBwR7ZpwYTj lR8HNGJGh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDOpAM2FrQ&list=UUR9sFzaG9Ia_kXJhfxtFMBA

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 08:38 PM
Maybe the evolution an organism hiding from the sunlight somehow developed new ability to enable it harness the energy from the sun?

You begin a statement with "maybe" and you're willing to call your "maybe" version of history science? You can't just come up with a hypothetical and call it science. Until you prove that that is what happened, we should assume that it is impossible because it has never happened any time that we have observed.


But that is not the debate.

Oh, yes it is.


The question is still about evolution and whether it is a fact or not. I say it is a fact that organisms have evolved, are evolving and will continue to evolve as long as cell division continues to happen they way they divide today.

You say it's a fact that some unknown organism climbed out of the sunlight and magically evolved a system to deal with the destructive force of sunlight? You can't separate the two and pretend this has nothing to do with evolution. We were originally talking about thermodynamics systems, so that is the question I'm dealing with. It is your position that life developed to use sunlight by chance, correct? What evidence do you have for this other than faith?

Suzu
12-13-2014, 08:48 PM
So you're saying the third option is that we don't exist at all?

I think after this I am going to stop responding to you, because you don't hear what I am actually saying, and you add your own spin onto it. Talk about straw man fallacies!


No, existence does not require matter, energy, space, or time. Prove that it does.

Let's turn the tables here, and you show me something that doesn't exist within the MEST universe.

specsaregood
12-13-2014, 09:10 PM
I've already debunked both of those points. They're false. But let me hit you with the truth one more time on that entropy thing you don't seem to be getting.

The only way sunlight is not destructive is through photosynthesis, and this requires plants. But go back before plants existed, and how did the energy from sunlight get used? Some living thing has to exist in order for sunlight to be used.

fwiw: photosynthesis also occurs in some bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria), which predates plants.



By producing gaseous oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, cyanobacteria are thought to have converted the early reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one, which dramatically changed the composition of life forms on Earth by stimulating biodiversity and leading to the near-extinction of oxygen-intolerant organisms. According to endosymbiotic theory, the chloroplasts found in plants and eukaryotic algae evolved from cyanobacterial ancestors via endosymbiosis.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 09:29 PM
I think after this I am going to stop responding to you, because you don't hear what I am actually saying, and you add your own spin onto it. Talk about straw man fallacies!

I am saying either the universe was made or it made itself. Go ahead and give me a third option. Nobody has been able to provide one yet. You cannot answer that by saying it wasn't made. That would imply that it does not exist.


Let's turn the tables here, and you show me something that doesn't exist within the MEST universe.

First, I agree that everything in the universe exists. Why would I try to show you something in the universe that doesn't? But the fact that the universe exists does not pre-ordain that everything that exists is within the universe and confined by MEST.

Secondly, let's NOT turn the tables and allow you to evade the question. You made the statement that existence requires matter, energy, space, and time. Prove it.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 09:30 PM
fwiw: photosynthesis also occurs in some bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria), which predates plants.

Okay, but how did they develop it? Going back further in time doesn't answer the question of how it got there in the first place.

specsaregood
12-13-2014, 09:34 PM
Okay, but how did they develop it? Going back further in time doesn't answer the question of how it got there in the first place.

Dunno, aliens maybe. I was just correcting your misstatement and answering the following question.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 09:37 PM
Dunno, aliens maybe. I was just correcting your misstatement and answering the following question.

Thanks for proving my point. Nobody can answer the question. And fine, plants are not literally the only things that use photosynthesis, but they are the main source of it. That's beside the point.

specsaregood
12-13-2014, 09:44 PM
Thanks for proving my point. Nobody can answer the question.
Which fits in quite well with my position as an agnostic, you're welcome.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 09:46 PM
You begin a statement with "maybe" and you're willing to call your "maybe" version of history science? You can't just come up with a hypothetical and call it science. Until you prove that that is what happened, we should assume that it is impossible because it has never happened any time that we have observed.



Oh, yes it is.



You say it's a fact that some unknown organism climbed out of the sunlight and magically evolved a system to deal with the destructive force of sunlight? You can't separate the two and pretend this has nothing to do with evolution. We were originally talking about thermodynamics systems, so that is the question I'm dealing with. It is your position that life developed to use sunlight by chance, correct? What evidence do you have for this other than faith?

juleswin, I take it that your lack of a response means you're admitting that your belief that these systems developed by chance is based on faith?

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 09:46 PM
You can't seriously believe this statement... smh.

I seriously can. SMH right back at you. Let me know when you have observed single celled organisms evolve to multicelled.




Guess you missed my earlier response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?58663-Ron-Paul-Doesn-t-Accept-Evolution&p=5727042#post5727042) on this point.

I didn't miss your point. I disagree with it. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. Arrogance maybe? And it's funny that you're trying to pretend I don't know what side of the argument that you are on. You should indeed smack your head.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 09:47 PM
Which fits in quite well with my position as an agnostic, you're welcome.

Very well. The question is not for you. It's for those who claim forthright that there was no intelligence involved in the creation of life.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 09:51 PM
Let me state this one more time: The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

If you said "I question the theory of relativity" they wouldn't be. Scientists themselves question the theory of relativity. The biggest unanswered question is how to reconcile it with quantum mechanics. Quit trying to act like you are the only one who understands science. You aren't.

jmdrake
12-13-2014, 09:56 PM
What a bizarre argument. The universe is a thermodynamic closed system; the energy within it is being slowly used up, and this process will eventually destroy it. Earth on the other hand has plenty of outside energy that reduces localized entropy and allows life to become more complicated. Entropy still occurs, but the outside energy reduces it locally. You can say that sunlight is "destructive" by some standard I suppose, but that says nothing about what it does to local entropy on Earth. This strikes me as a big case of cognitive dissonance in the mind of the creationist. The line that creationists use these days is that they "believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution". People knowledgeable about the science know that there is no distinction between the two except time, but I digress. The thing is, a local slowing of entropy is needed for "microevolution". Creationists either need to admit that the Sun does slow local entropy and therefore evolution doesn't violate the second law, or go back to rejecting "microevolution".

You can keep saying that 2 + 2 = 7 and claim that over and over again and say that "Really intelligent people know that 2 + 2 = 7" but that doesn't make it true. There is a difference, besides "time", from an organism adapting to conditions and an organism becoming more complex. Microevolution can exist in a closed system without having to appeal to hand waving arguments that claim "the sun did it" without any explanation as to how. That's just a fact.

Suzu
12-13-2014, 10:50 PM
I am saying either the universe was made or it made itself. Go ahead and give me a third option. Nobody has been able to provide one yet. You cannot answer that by saying it wasn't made. That would imply that it does not exist.

You are claiming that something that doesn't exist can make itself exist. How illogical is that?


First, I agree that everything in the universe exists. Why would I try to show you something in the universe that doesn't? But the fact that the universe exists does not pre-ordain that everything that exists is within the universe and confined by MEST.

Allright, show me something that exists outside the universe.

PaulConventionWV
12-13-2014, 11:02 PM
You are claiming that something that doesn't exist can make itself exist. How illogical is that?

I KNOW! That seems to suggest that the universe was made and that it didn't just randomly pop into existence, which kind of proves my whole point.


Allright, show me something that exists outside the universe.

Stop sidestepping the question. You made the claim that existence requires MEST and I asked you to prove it but you completely left that out of your response and tried to change the subject. I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Ronin Truth
12-14-2014, 07:40 AM
Big Bang: In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded. LOL!

Natural Citizen
12-14-2014, 07:44 AM
A couple of you have inferred a closed system and then premised follow-up discussion upon that theory. So, that said, consider this...

This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists (http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12?utm_content=bufferb38f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)





“At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” Hot things cool down, gas diffuses through air, eggs scramble but never spontaneously unscramble; in short, energy tends to disperse or spread out as time progresses. Entropy is a measure of this tendency, quantifying how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. It increases as a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated.

“Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place. In Schrödinger’s day, they could solve the equations of thermodynamics only for closed systems in equilibrium. In the 1960s, the Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine made progress on predicting the behavior of open systems weakly driven by external energy sources (for which he won the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry). But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted.”



More clearly, consider that the given the parameters offered here in these two snippets from the paper would indicate an open system. And this, of course, leaves (or should leave) metaphysical questions for both theologians and for scientists. Uncomfortable questions.

That said, enter the quantum world...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU&list=UUR9sFzaG9Ia_kXJhfxtFMBA

Ronin Truth
12-14-2014, 07:50 AM
If it's a false dichotomy, then show me another option. It's only false if you can demonstrate that there is a third option. If you can't, then it's not.

That's how false dichotomies work. Look it up.

I really don't need to look it up. I know how it works. Your explanation is totally unnecessary and presumptuous. BTW, your quoted post above contains yet another logically invalid, false dichotomy. Can you find it?


Another option for life on Earth? Panspermia.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=panspermia+theory&gbv=2&oq=panspermia&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l10.52116156.52119125.0.52129500.10.7.0.3. 3.0.328.1124.2-2j2.4.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.7.1406.2GswINIef6w