steveb,



Yes, I was thinking of subspecies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It still does not diminish my assertion that one form of life cannot change to another.



Sort of like nuclear proliferation, isn't it?

Ratch

"It still does not diminish my assertion that one form of life cannot change to another."

So you feel every species was created uniquely and only allowed to change or evolve within certain boundaries? These species were here at the start of 'creation' or spontaneously staggered over time as determined by what? You don't seem to be able to tell us what are your thoughts of how things have come to be, but you seem all to certain how it didn't happen.

Again, please cut to the chase and tell us your theory on how life started and became what we see around us today.

Lefty

 

leftyretro,

So you feel every species was created uniquely and only allowed to change or evolve within certain boundaries? These species were here at the start of 'creation' or spontaneously staggered over time as determined by what?

"It still does not diminish my assertion that one form of life cannot change to another."

That's a pretty good summary of my thinking. I don't pretend to know why things were created in the first place, and why the times of recreation were selected.

You don't seem to be able to tell us what are your thoughts of how things have come to be, but you seem all to certain how it didn't happen.

Again, please cut to the chase and tell us your theory on how life started and became what we see around us today.

I already did. I believe life was first created and recreated over the aeons. Why and when I don't know, but it is the only senario that explains everything.

Ratch

 

No, it is not. To paraphrase a tag, your inability to comprehend something does not invalidate it. It's easy to modify something, creation isn't so easy.

Like I said, true beliefs shine through. So animals that are different species, but share a higher than normal percentage of DNA and appearance, were created that way. I would guess (according to you) that after all the critters kill each other off God makes a new batch, then steps back to enjoy the show. The fossil record was made by the devil to deceive us and lead us into the sin of science, and light was created already on the way (for much the same reason). Me, I think the universe is miracle enough, no extra gimmick needed. The solutions are elegant, and God does not decieve. He may hide things, but it is as a puzzle, not deception.

 

Bill_Marsden,

No, it is not. To paraphrase a tag, your inability to comprehend something does not invalidate it.

Are you referring to me? I think you are because your post follows mine. It would be nice if you addressed the person in the heading and gave a quote so that the person knows to what aspect of the topic you are referring.

So now I have to ask. To what something are you referring?

Ratch

 

He discovered a flower that no insect or bird could reach the nectar of the flower, according his knowledge at the time. He made a note in a personal journal. Many years later a scientist wanted to answer that
question,he made trip to the rain forest to find a creature that
matched his notes. He did not know whether it was bird or insect.
He found the flower and watched for the creature that matched
darwin's notes,took photo's of the moth feeding on the flower.In
the rapid fire debate,you miss some connections that happen in the real
world. The debate need more sources that can be verified,with several
sources.

 

leftyretro,
I believe life was first created and recreated over the aeons. Why and when I don't know, but it is the only senario that explains everything.

Ratch

How exactly?
Does that not leave even more unanswerable questions?

 

I cannot comment much on the theory of evolution as i believe in the existence of God. I believe no idea, howsoever ridiculous, should be dismissed just because our limited senses cannot gauge it!

This does not mean i support everything supernatural or believe in superstitions.

 

God created evolution,look through a prizim
you will the spectum of light.

 

recca02,

How exactly?
Does that not leave even more unanswerable questions?

It sure does. Creation is beyond science. Science can only observe creation, not explain it.

Ratch

 

b.shahvir,

I believe no idea, howsoever ridiculous, should be dismissed just because our limited senses cannot gauge it!

Some ideas just don't mesh with the facts, and should be rejected for that reason.

Ratch

 

b.shahvir,



Some ideas just don't mesh with the facts, and should be rejected for that reason.

Ratch

Finally, common ground on which to agree on.

Lefty

 

Amen......

 

b.shahvir,

Some ideas just don't mesh with the facts, and should be rejected for that reason.

Ratch

If some ideas are rejected just because they do not mesh with facts, then people will cease to question! Scientific enquiry will cease to exist. No new discovery will take place. Refer the Eloys in 'Time Machine'.

 

If some ideas are rejected just because they do not mesh with facts, then people will cease to question! Scientific enquiry will cease to exist. No new discovery will take place. Refer the Eloys in 'Time Machine'.

There are two competing principles of science here. Yes, it's important to question, brainstorm and keep an open mind with the goal of new discovery. However, science demands that ideas that do not mesh with the facts must be rejected and not included in theory. Great theories not only agree with established facts, but also make predictions about unknown facts. If these later become proved experimentally, then the theory becomes stronger.

This is exactly why Darwin's idea of natural selection is accepted by just about all scientists as the single most important theory that explains the scientifically established fact that life evolved. It meshes perfectly with all experimental data related to observation of current life, the fossil record, continental drift and molecular biology (i.e. DNA evidence). The amount of evidence is absolutely staggering - mountains and mountains of it is there to study. Neither creationist theory, nor intelligent design theory explains any data at all, while evolution theory is consistent with known data. Darwin knew nothing about DNA, continental drift or the fossil evidence of so-called missing links (although he predicted the latter). Yet, all of the new data agrees with the theory of natural selection.

For a modern thinker to doubt evolution, he must first reject science as a useful truth-seeking method. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is on a par with Newton's Force and Gravity Laws, Einstein's Relativity, Maxwells Electrodynamics, Quantum Theory etc. Note that all of these theories are understood to provide an incomplete description of Nature. Science is not some magical perfect thing, but an imperfect incomplete method to gradually learn about nature and understand its inner workings. The one thing that makes science useful is that it has an impartial "hanging-judge" that mercilessly orders the execution of theories that are not supported by experimental evidence.

 

Stated very good and a solid feet on ground aproach.

 

There are two competing principles of science here. Yes, it's important to question, brainstorm and keep an open mind with the goal of new discovery. However, science demands that ideas that do not mesh with the facts must be rejected and not included in theory. Great theories not only agree with established facts, but also make predictions about unknown facts. If these later become proved experimentally, then the theory becomes stronger.

This is exactly why Darwin's idea of natural selection is accepted by just about all scientists as the single most important theory that explains the scientifically established fact that life evolved. It meshes perfectly with all experimental data related to observation of current life, the fossil record, continental drift and molecular biology (i.e. DNA evidence). The amount of evidence is absolutely staggering - mountains and mountains of it is there to study. Neither creationist theory, nor intelligent design theory explains any data at all, while evolution theory is consistent with known data. Darwin knew nothing about DNA, continental drift or the fossil evidence of so-called missing links (although he predicted that latter). Yet, all of the new data agrees with the theory of natural selection.

For a modern thinker to doubt evolution, he must first reject science as a useful truth-seeking method. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is on a par with Newton's Force and Gravity Laws, Einstein's Relativity, Maxwells Electrodynamics, Quantum Theory etc. Note that all of these theories are understood to provide an incomplete description of Nature. Science is not some magical perfect thing, but an imperfect incomplete method to gradually learn about nature and understand its inner workings. The one thing that makes science useful is that it has an impartial "hanging-judge" that mercilessly orders the execution of theories that are not supported by experimental evidence.

Nice summation. It seems rather obvious that the scientific method never discourages questioning and testing of both past and new theories and accepts the real possibility that past and present facts, theories and laws are subject to change with future advances in knowledge. Can the same be said for the faith based crowd?

The fact is that the science vs religion argument was won long ago and slowly but surly humanity will shed it's superstitions, witchcraft and fears. Sooner for some then others. Evolution in knowledge acquisition is also inevitably and natural selection will decide the fate for those that wish to ignore it.

Lefty

 

Evolution in knowledge acquisition is also inevitably and natural selection will decide the fate for those that wish to ignore it.

That's an overtly ambitious statement!
I agree with the healthy arguments presented in general. I do not intend to contradict any idea or stir up a controversy. What I'm only saying is that if one does not believe in the existence of the Sun, one cannot assume thet the Sun does not exist or will cease to exist for that matter. The Sun has existed for millions, nay, maybe billions of years now and will continue to so whether if someone believes in it's existence or not!

Centuries ago, the gravitational force was a mystery to our ancestors. They thought that it was natural for every object on the Earth to rest on the ground.....until Newton 'discovered' that a force is responsible for pulling the objects towards the ground, the absence of which would be responsible for chaos. On similar lines, God is an entity which has to be 'discovered' and there are methods available for it. Follow the right path and one can discover the existence of God in his or her life just as Newton 'uncovered' the existence of a gravitational force, which had always existed since the birth of our planet!

I hope you guys interpret my thoughts in the right sense. Cheers!

 

steveb,

This is exactly why Darwin's idea of natural selection is accepted by just about all scientists as the single most important theory that explains the scientifically established fact that life evolved.

It is not a scientific fact that life evolved. The theory incorrectly implies that higher organization comes from lower organization without any outside influence. And life, even the simplest, is an paragon of organizational achievement. Until that contradiction can be explained, that theory is dead on delivery (DOD).

It meshes perfectly with all experimental data related to observation of current life, the fossil record, continental drift and molecular biology (i.e. DNA evidence). The amount of evidence is absolutely staggering - mountains and mountains of it is there to study.

That is just plain, pure, unadulterated beautiful sunshine (BS). Current life: Why is mankind unable to make his own vitamine C? Other mammals can do it, but mankind is complete dependent on plants or pills for this absolutely essential nutrient. One would think that the survival of the fittest would have taken care of that problem by now. Fossil record: One doesn't have to study it very hard to realize that there are big gaps where certain life disappears and other different type of life suddenly appear. There is by no means a steady succession of low to high forms. DNA: Well, doesn't it show with just as much veracity that a common creator did it all? Every artist, architect, and sculptor has his own methods and style. That could explain why all life has DNA.

Neither creationist theory, nor intelligent design theory explains any data at all, while evolution theory is consistent with known data.

The first two theories mentioned above suggest what could have happened. Evolution theory suggests that also, but it is a false explanation because its underlying principle of simple to complex organization is fundamentally flawed.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA, continental drift or the fossil evidence of so-called missing links (although he predicted that latter). Yet, all of the new data agrees with the theory of natural selection.

Everyone who believes the last sentence above is kidding themselves.

For a modern thinker to doubt evolution, he must first reject science as a useful truth-seeking method.

I would say just the opposite is true.

Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is on a par with Newton's Force and Gravity Laws, Einstein's Relativity, Maxwells Electrodynamics, Quantum Theory etc.

In popularity perhaps, but not in factual analysis.

Note that all of these theories are understood to provide an incomplete description of Nature. Science is not some magical perfect thing, but an imperfect incomplete method to gradually learn about nature and understand its inner workings. The one thing that makes science useful is that it has an impartial "hanging-judge" that mercilessly orders the execution of theories that are not supported by experimental evidence.

Irrelevant. If a theory is wrong, then it is wrong, period. Until it is proven right. If it cannot proven right or wrong, then it should be held is abeyance.

Ratch

 

This -

If a theory is wrong, then it is wrong, period. Until it is proven right. If it cannot proven right or wrong, then it should be held is abeyance.

- interesting. You are setting yourself up as the ultimate judge of the theory of evolution.

What evidence exists to cause the theory to be shown as incorrect (beside the fact that you don't like it)? What is a testable alternative?

As far as holding a theory off the books until every aspect is utterly proven, that just isn't the way science works. Theory is not absolute fact. It is an explanation of observed phenomena that seeks to establish a set of rules that govern the things observed. If one had to go to absolutes, than we would not have a theory of gravitation - nobody yet knows how gravity works, but the effect can be demonstrated to exist. Should we take it off the books because we can't fully explain gravity?

 

Irrelevant. If a theory is wrong, then it is wrong period. Until it is proven right. If it cannot proven right or wrong, then it should be held is abeyance.

Ratch

Ratch, I wasn't trying to reopen the debate. I was just addressing the point that science must reject ideas that don't mesh with facts. We at least seem to agree on that. It's very clear that we will never agree about evolution. But, it's important that you recognize that you are out of step with all serious scientists of our age. Scientists have been applying the scientific method to this subject for quite some time now. There is data, fact and theory firmly established. Your stating that is is all BS doesn't change this. That fact that you have just made statements and not offered one rational thought for a scientific explanation speaks volumes about your position on the subject. You basically have a nonscientific point of view, which is your right, but let's label it for what it truly is.