Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

On the origin of chemical elements

From your link...."The paper was published in Physical Review on April 1st 1948. Titled “The Origin of Chemical Elements”, it described a process by which all of the known elements in the universe could have come into existence shortly after the big bang. It built on previous work by Gamow that suggested the elements originated “as a consequence of a continuous building-up process arrested by a rapid expansion and cooling of the primordial matter” — in other words, different atoms were made by adding one nucleon at a time to the nucleus, before the process was stopped when the universe became too cool."

This whole article is all speculative....not factual. Its about as convincing to me as Bible reading would be to you.

Logic dictates that atoms and molecules have inherent properties that make them stick to each other or repel each other. And logic dictates that with a universe 13.8 billion years old full of chemical reactions somewhere enough atoms and molecules are bound to keep bumping into each other and stick until somewhere you get clusters of them so big and with such properties that we call them alive.

Logic dictates that if there is a building code for anything, there has to be an intelligent mind to write the code.....one that has a full working knowledge of all the mechanics. No matter how old you think the universe is, nothing in science can prove that what is "believed" to have taken place all those billions of years ago, actually did.

Nothing to do with biological evolution. Scientists may have solved mystery of matter’s origin

Even the name here gives it away....."Scientists MAY HAVE solved the mystery...."

It says...."the paper is fairly impenetrable for the lay reader — even the abstract contains few words with less than four syllables.

But the gist of their theory is simple, even poetic: The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing."

Does this sound like the standard scientific approach, lost in jargon but still complete guesswork? Seriously. You guys are so desperate that you'll believe anything and anyone who agrees with what you want to believe. I have to wonder what glasses you are wearing or if you even read the articles you cite.

"The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing"???

It originated when clusters of different atoms and molecules grew so big that they got the properties we require to call them alive.

I'm sorry, but that is just funny....

....so scientific.

That would be biological evolution.

Yes, the study of life that has no real answers about anything that is not speculation. I can make guesses too...what makes your guesses better than mine?

Atoms and molecules keep bumping into each other and because of their inherent properties these molecules and assemblies of molecules got bigger and bigger until they aquired the properties we require for us to call them alive.

Are you running out of guesses? Why do you keep repeating this same nonsense? It wasn't convincing the first time.

Who gave these molecules the properties that are required to assemble themselves into something that can be called "alive"? If they weren't alive before, then what if I put all the components of a computer in a cement mixer so that they all bumped into one another many times....how long would I have to wait for a working computer to come out of the mixer?

Are you really sure that you trust these educated guessers? Sounds like a load of old cods to me....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, at least I know it's not science without experiment. At least I know it's not science without metaphysics.

Unfortunately no one can possibly understand the nature of science and the possibility other sciences can exist without at least understanding metaphysics. In order to understand two sciences you have to start by understanding one. You would need to also understand why math works to understand ancient science so this is probably a lost cause here.

Maybe I'll try a different tack.

Since you are so obviously wrong perhaps that would be a wise choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. What I actually said was that religion was based on ancient science. I never said or intended to imply that it was in any way whatsoever "scientific". Astrology is based on science but that hardly makes it scientific. String theory and evolution are also based on science.

Once again, science is a relatively young concept.

And no, astrology is not based on science.

Please don't conflate science with knowledge. If you aren't using the scientific method you are not doing science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Obviously I'm referring to definition #2. ...And it's not based on "observation or experiment", it is based on "observation AND experiment". Indeed, "observation" probably doesn't need to be listed as defining property of science but without proper scientific observation hypothesis formation, experiment design, and interpretation of results are all impossible.

As the definition says ALL SCIENCE is based on experiment. . Everything else is word games or speculation.

The problem with modern science is that its metaphysics is so simple very few people understand the implications of experimental results. You can't understand science without understanding its metaphysics. People don't even understand the definition of science, far less its meaning. They don't understand the definition of "metaphysics" either so everything is faith based. To one person evolution proves there is no God and the next sees proof there is a God. Meanwhile most of evolution "science" is really speculation not based on observation or experiment.

Observation and experiment doesn't mean that both have to be present. How are we experimenting with the origins of the universe or in our understanding of the lives of non-human creatures - for example?

 

[ArtieE]

If they weren't alive before, then what if I put all the components of a computer in a cement mixer so that they all bumped into one another many times....how long would I have to wait for a working computer to come out of the mixer?

Irrelevant of course. Computer components don't have properties making them stick to each other when mixed. Atoms and molecules do. By the way, here is a good biology course.
Biology I | Simple Book Production

 

[Deeje]

Computer components don't have properties making them stick to each other when mixed. Atoms and molecules do.

LOL...what if I added glue?....or Vaseline? Remember you said that they weren't alive before they got stuck together...and "life" just...accidentally.......happened.....somehow? How amazing! Almost as amazing as an Intelligent Designer purposely putting molecules together to make something "alive".....like it was done on purpose?

Perhaps you need the biology course? You don't appear to know much about the subject.

Is a biology course is going to answer my questions about evolution better than you can? Oh wait....it will probably be full of the same suggestions that have already been discussed. You want to rely on their guesswork....? Go right ahead.

 

[ArtieE]

LOL...what if I added glue?

No. If you added glue to different computer components and mixed them they would just stick together but not make a working computer.

Remember you said that they weren't alive before they got stuck together

No, I said we call assemblies of atoms and molecules with certain properties alive.

...and "life" just...accidentally.......happened.....somehow?

No, there are an untold number of assemblies of atoms and molecules which don't have the properties we require to call them alive. Some don't, some do.

How amazing! Almost as amazing as an Intelligent Designer purposely putting molecules together to make something "alive".....like it was done on purpose?

Nothing "amazing" about atoms and molecules simply bumping together until some of the assemblies acquire certain properties and can do what we require these assemblies to do in order to call them alive. They just do what comes naturally to atoms and molecules when mixed.

 

[metis]

IMO we're just looking at species change from the wrong angle. We are building models that are not reflective of the reality of what drives this change.

And how is it that you supposedly know that? Have you really studied this in any depth? Based on what I've seen you write, it appears that you haven't, and I'm not posting this as a slam.

The evidence for th ToE is so substantial that to question it's basic premise, namely that life forms have evolved over billions of years, is no longer a question-- it's an answer. But what are the questions are the details, with many of them now known but many others still in "limbo".

BTW, one of greatest thrills along this line is when I was visiting a museum in Casper, Wyoming, and one of the staff there asked me what I was interested in, so I told him about my background and profession. A curator of the museum came out and got me, took me into the back room whereas they prepare the fossils for display, and I held a roughly six-foot dinosaur rib that would have been somewhere around 100 million years old. What a experience that was-- I felt like a kid again.

 

[cladking]

And how is it that you supposedly know that? Have you really studied this in any depth? Based on what I've seen you write, it appears that you haven't, and I'm not posting this as a slam.

The evidence for th Toe is so substantial that to question it's basic premise, namely that life forms have evolved over billions of years, is no longer a question-- it's an answer. But what are the questions are the details, with many of them now known but many others still in "limbo".

There's simply no question that species change and that they always have. My problem isn't with the "what" but with the "how". I believe that if we had a better appreciation of how species change it would change our outlook about everything.

People have come to accept everything as mechanistic when the reality is that nothing is really mechanistic. Life is only composed of individuals which we are segregating into taxonomies that exist only in language because we can only think in language. The universe is far more complex and unknowable than our science projects. Our language suggests knowledge which doesn't exist.

Our perspective is poor and it leads us to see only a small part of what's really there.

 

[Audie]

And how is it that you supposedly know that? Have you really studied this in any depth? Based on what I've seen you write, it appears that you haven't, and I'm not posting this as a slam.

The evidence for th Toe is so substantial that to question it's basic premise, namely that life forms have evolved over billions of years, is no longer a question-- it's an answer. But what are the questions are the details, with many of them now known but many others still in "limbo".

In some settings, the submission of "facts not in evidence" is not allowed.

 

[cladking]

Observation and experiment doesn't mean that both have to be present. How are we experimenting with the origins of the universe or in our understanding of the lives of non-human creatures - for example?

Actually, yes. You must have experiment to be real science. Certainly there are things that can be understood or explained without actual experiment but to be part of theory there must be experiment. This is part of the extrapolation in which people engage. We tend to equate understanding and theory which is a circular argument. Since we "understand" evolution we assume we can extrapolate its results into existing theory and as a "theory" of its own. This is why it's called the theory of evolution rather than the collection of hypotheses which it really represents.

Without experiment or the ability to make prediction ToE as it applies to gradual change in the long term is unsupported.

I'm not saying such gradual change is impossible to occur (look at the cockroach), merely that it is rare because the primary drivers of change always make very rapid changes. Some might call this a small point even if I'm correct but from this perspective species change and everything looks far different.

 

[Audie]

There's simply no question that species change and that they always have. My problem isn't with the "what" but with the "how". I believe that if we had a better appreciation of how species change it would change our outlook about everything.

People have come to accept everything as mechanistic when the reality is that nothing is really mechanistic. Life is only composed of individuals which we are segregating into taxonomies that exist only in language because we can only think in language. The universe is far more complex and unknowable than our science projects. Our language suggests knowledge which doesn't exist.

Our perspective is poor and it leads us to see only a small part of what's really there.

I dont know how or to whom science "projects" this, but anyone who works in research or is any sort of diligent amateur knows that every answer brings more questions and is intensely aware that the mysteries not merely outnumber the answers, but are infinite.

Our language suggests knowledge which doesn't exist.

Yes, the word "God" is the best example of that one could ask for.

 

[metis]

I believe that if we had a better appreciation of how species change it would change our outlook about everything.

Geneticists pretty much know how genetics work.

The universe is far more complex and unknowable than our science projects.

Yes, but we know a heckofa lot more than we did centuries or even decades ago.

The basic ToE is alive & kicking quite well, but I think the important thing to remember that we don't know what started this entire process from the get-go, even though there may not even be a get-go.

Speaking of that, I gotta "get-go" myself. See ya later.

 

[Audie]

Actually, yes. You must have experiment to be real science. Certainly there are things that can be understood or explained without actual experiment but to be part of theory there must be experiment. This is part of the extrapolation in which people engage. We tend to equate understanding and theory which is a circular argument. Since we "understand" evolution we assume we can extrapolate its results into existing theory and as a "theory" of its own. This is why it's called the theory of evolution rather than the collection of hypotheses which it really represents.

Without experiment or the ability to make prediction ToE as it applies to gradual change in the long term is unsupported.

I'm not saying such gradual change is impossible to occur (look at the cockroach), merely that it is rare because the primary drivers of change always make very rapid changes. Some might call this a small point even if I'm correct but from this perspective species change and everything looks far different.

You say this over and over and over, but you have yet, I believe, to say
how fast is "rapid", or where you get this information about "rapid" change.

Fossil evidence shows the opposite.

You really should put up, or quit making this claim of, yes,
'facts not in evidence."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Actually, yes. You must have experiment to be real science. Certainly there are things that can be understood or explained without actual experiment but to be part of theory there must be experiment. This is part of the extrapolation in which people engage. We tend to equate understanding and theory which is a circular argument. Since we "understand" evolution we assume we can extrapolate its results into existing theory and as a "theory" of its own. This is why it's called the theory of evolution rather than the collection of hypotheses which it really represents.

Without experiment or the ability to make prediction ToE as it applies to gradual change in the long term is unsupported.

I'm not saying such gradual change is impossible to occur (look at the cockroach), merely that it is rare because the primary drivers of change always make very rapid changes. Some might call this a small point even if I'm correct but from this perspective species change and everything looks far different.

You must know this is rubbish. Before we had the means to test things - our ideas, theories, etc. - it was still science, just a little less informed than later science. Like the LHC, electron microscope, manipulation of DNA, etc. - these things have enabled us to see deeper and further, with some experimentation going on, but many fields of science are simply not open to experimentation. Astrophysics being a supreme example.

 

[cladking]

You must know this is rubbish. Before we had the means to test things - our ideas, theories, etc. - it was still science, just a little less informed than later science. Like the LHC, electron microscope, manipulation of DNA, etc. - these things have enabled us to see deeper and further, with some experimentation going on, but many fields of science are simply not open to experimentation. Astrophysics being a supreme example.

Astrophysics makes "prediction" which is a sort of experiment. Even statistics that are shown to be repeatable can be construed as a sort of experiment. This is a very slippery slope though. Before long people start wanting to use computer modelling to prove hypothesis rather than merely concept.

Cosmology is stuck in the 1920's apparently caused by the inability to devise experiment. So it has become largely mathematical which also isn't experiment and is beyond the scope of its metaphysics. I personally believe that the problem is that we use a mathematics that is not reflective of reality. It is math that gave us the big bang, many worlds, and a holographic universe. It is the very definitions that underlie science that has caused us to bog down. It is that euclidean geometry generates the concept of "infinity" which doesn't exist in reality.

The problem here is all part of the same thing; metaphysics. The first modern scientists excluded humans and our perceptions from the process of studying nature but didn't realize that by using language and definitions we were carrying baggage right in on the ground floor. How ironic that some of the concepts that led to the invention of modern science originated in religious thought. I believe it was deduced from concepts that survived the confusion of the language. In other words even modern science owes its origin to ancient science.

I have no dog in the fight over evolution but it's quite apparent that beliefs in this subject may not fit experiment and it's quite obvious they don't fit observation. That it is a touchstone for argument over "God" is caused by its nature of being fundamental to ancient and modern science. While the portions of the brain related to speech have become analog in nature the rest of the brain including the amygdala are still digital. We exist as an individual and complete animal and even can communicate with some of our digital brain in our sleep so of course the logic that gave rise to Ancient Language (ancient science) still exists in us. We are what we believe and many individuals see the logic of behavior as the determinant of our lives individually and collectively. I personally actually side with this view but, unsurprisingly, I see it from a different angle.

"Science" is no way to live. It is of the noblest pursuits but trying to model ones life around such a metaphysics that sought to exclude man and consciousness in its foundation is hollow. Of course I'm not suggesting religion or any religion in its stead. I'm merely suggesting that people have a poor perspective to see evolution. It's probably impossible to ever understand change in species until we understand individuals and consciousness. This seems a tautology to me. We can't understand any individual until we first understand ourselves.

Know thyself is some of the best advice you'll ever encounter.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Astrophysics makes "prediction" which is a sort of experiment. Even statistics that are shown to be repeatable can be construed as a sort of experiment. This is a very slippery slope though. Before long people start wanting to use computer modelling to prove hypothesis rather than merely concept.

Slippery slope and argument I would say. Much of science seems to exist in the realm of hypotheses more than experimentation, and although modelling might be seen as a form or experimentation we still have many areas that just seem to rely on proposals more than anything when the evidence is just so lacking - from the past for example, in fundamental particle physics, or astrophysics. I doubt we will have the ability to do experiments on the latter for some time yet.

 

[cladking]

Slippery slope and argument I would say. Much of science seems to exist in the realm of hypotheses more than experimentation, and although modelling might be seen as a form or experimentation we still have many areas that just seem to rely on proposals more than anything when the evidence is just so lacking - from the past for example, in fundamental particle physics, or astrophysics. I doubt we will have the ability to do experiments on the latter for some time yet.

I agree. And until the "experiments" are done these areas of science are hypothesis and not theory.

I believe that when we are able to perform a few of these experiments we'll eventually find many of the hypotheses to be wholly lacking. Until then we'll simply have to entertain many possibilities and many hypotheses.

I believe science went off the beam in the 1880's and 1890's. There were many great scientists at the time but they were wrong. Perhaps much of this is that we were simply approaching the natural limitations of experimental science. I believe experimental science needs a new metaphysics to proceed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, yes. You must have experiment to be real science. Certainly there are things that can be understood or explained without actual experiment but to be part of theory there must be experiment. This is part of the extrapolation in which people engage. We tend to equate understanding and theory which is a circular argument. Since we "understand" evolution we assume we can extrapolate its results into existing theory and as a "theory" of its own. This is why it's called the theory of evolution rather than the collection of hypotheses which it really represents.

Without experiment or the ability to make prediction ToE as it applies to gradual change in the long term is unsupported.

I'm not saying such gradual change is impossible to occur (look at the cockroach), merely that it is rare because the primary drivers of change always make very rapid changes. Some might call this a small point even if I'm correct but from this perspective species change and everything looks far different.

Why do you think that experiments cannot be done with the theory of evolution? You appear to have a faulty definition of "experiment".

 

[cladking]

Why do you think that experiments cannot be done with the theory of evolution? You appear to have a faulty definition of "experiment".

A great many hypotheses called the theory of evolution are testable and have been "proven" by experiment. But much of it is not testable and have not been shown. They are accepted because they are a logical explanation for observed facts. This especially applies to the concept of gradual change through natural selection. I'm saying this does not exist in most instances and is not the basis of most change in species.