No one should believe in evolution!

[Subduction Zone]

I think man will always believe in something, because although some things can be known, man can never absolutely know all things. I think if one believes in Evolution, he rightly does so (not saying it is right to believe it) based on the fact that nothing about the theory can be verified absolutely.

No theory can be verified "absolutely". By your logic one should not even "believe in" gravity.

Theories explain facts. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. One need not believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is all wrong even the concept
where is adaptability from the theory?

Like @Audie I do not understand what you are asking here.

 

[metis]

That is what science is trying to determine. GodDidIt has never been a correct answer.

Complexity does not imply divinity.

What is the impulse for two hydrogen atoms to "stick" to an oxygen atom?

You have me barking up the wrong tree plus, as an anthropologist, I'm very careful in not assuming that which cannot and should not be assumed. I do not assume divine creation but neither can I deny its hypothetical possibility. If one assumes the latter is impossible, they no longer are operating out of a scientific paradigm.

 

[ecco]

I think if one believes in Evolution, he rightly does so (not saying it is right to believe it) based on the fact that nothing about the theory can be verified absolutely.

I think if one believes in god, he rightly does so (not saying it is right to believe it) based on the fact that nothing about any god can be verified at all.





Well, that's not quite true. It can be verified that gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

You have me barking up the wrong tree plus, as an anthropologist, I'm very careful in not assuming that which cannot and should not be assumed. I do not assume divine creation but neither can I deny its hypothetical possibility. If one assumes the latter is impossible, they no longer are operating out of a scientific paradigm.

• So you do not deny the hypothetical possibility of the Cherokee Creation Myth.
• So you do not deny the hypothetical possibility that god created everything Last Thursday.

Sorry, but that does not sound very scientific to me.

 

[metis]

Well, that's not quite true. It can be verified that gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

Absolutely false. One characteristic of religion is that fact that probably all such beliefs are what we refer to as "unfalsifiable". IOW, no matter which religious concept I put forth, I can guarantee you that you cannot prove me wrong. Of course, the counter to that is that neither can I prove myself right.

Wanna try? OK, our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla that spewed out spit-wads with some lit with his flaming breath, and these because what we now see in our universe. Prove me wrong.

A hyper-atheist is just as much of a blind believer as is the most ardent religious fundamentalist because they believe in that which cannot in any way be objectively established. Therefore, neither are operating out of a scientific paradigm.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but that does not sound very scientific to me.

See above.

 

[ecco]

Absolutely false. One characteristic of religion is that fact that probably all such beliefs are what we refer to as "unfalsifiable". IOW, no matter which religious concept I put forth, I can guarantee you that you cannot prove me wrong.
Therefore, neither are operating out of a scientific paradigm.

Well, there ya go, spoutin' all hot and heavy about science and paradigms. Yet you don't seem to know that science isn't about proofs, science is about accumulated evidence. Ya know, things like the mountain of accumulated evidence supporting evolution.

So let's look at the evidence supporting my contention that gods are merely the creation of man's imaginings.

The notion of gods goes back at least as far as man's written history. We can find stories about gods in the writings of all civilizations, all tribes. We can analyze these writings to determine whether they are factual or fictitious. I'm not just talking about the OT, but also things like the Cherokee Creation Myth and stories about Nyame and Isis and Zeus and Shiva, et al.

No one has ever been able to substantiate any of these. Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming they are all fiction, made up by man.

Some years ago a couple of guys stated they had gotten cold fusion to work.

No others were able to substantiate their findings. Therefore, the evidence was overwhelming that their process for getting positive results from cold fusion was fiction, made up by a couple of guys.

 

[gnostic]

Is as I say, there is zero proof or evidence, scientific or otherwise that abiogenesis on this planet may have happened more than once. But hey, feel free to believe in space alien peoples.

You are completely ignorant as to what science say.

Scientists who have hypotheses that life were started by extraterrestrial, they weren’t talking about UFO or alien civilisation.

The people who do research on Abiogenesis where life started on Earth, trying to do experiments to recreate the condition of early Earth history, to make amino acid. (For instance, the
Miller–Urey experiment, performed in the early 1950s.)

The chemical compounds of certain chains of amino acids (there are many different types of amino acids) are what protein made out of.

Proteins are one of major components required for life, as well as carbohydrates and nucleic acids (eg DNA & RNA); these three biological compounds are what biologists and biochemists called living matters.

Those scientists propositioning hypotheses that life could have started extraterrestrial origin, are not so wild at all.

They are talking about amino acids found in meteorites and comets that have crashed to Earth.

A large meteorite, called Murchison meteorite, broke up in the sky and crashed in several places not far from small Australian town called Murchison. Collecting all the pieces of meteorite is that have a total mass of just over 100 kilograms.

What scientists discovered upon the meteorite was over 90 different types of amino acids.

Asteroids and meteorites in space are debris from previous nearby supernovas. And these debris are old as the solar system. They are composed of different types of metals and minerals. But the existence of amino acids in meteorites tell us that these can survive in the harsh environment of space and be preserved in the meteorite.

During the early Earth history, the Earth was bombarded frequently by comet and meteorites. The possibility that some of these meteorites and comets might contain amino acids, are very high.

Like I said before extraterrestrial origin don’t mean your strawman claim of “space alien people”. They are talking about amino acids found in meteorites, not extraterrestrial people.

You would know this if bothered to a little reading and research, instead making up nonsense about “space alien people”.

And the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extraterrestrial origin. So it isn’t “zero evidence” as you’ve claimed.

 

[metis]

Well, there ya go, spoutin' all hot and heavy about science and paradigms. Yet you don't seem to know that science isn't about proofs, science is about accumulated evidence. Ya know, things like the mountain of accumulated evidence supporting evolution.

I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for over 30 years, plus if if you actually read my posts as they're written you would maybe even understand that I do not use "proofs" or "proven" but do use "evidence".

No one has ever been able to substantiate any of these. Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming they are all fiction, made up by man.

Now you are not working out of a scientific paradigm but out of biased arrogance. Just because we can't establish that we're in a multiverse versus just a universe doesn't mean that there can't be a multiverse.

So, I'm already sick & tired of your know-it-all biased attitude, so this is my last post in response to you. Confucius supposedly said that the more you know the more you know you really don't know, so maybe take a humble pill and realize that just because we don't have evidence for X doesn't necessarily mean that X can't exist. You simply do not understand how science works and the restraints we're under.

 

[Nate]

If we don't have any evidence to support a theory, that theory doesn't cease to exist or become impossible, it's just useless because it doesn't fit our current understanding of the universe.

That doesn't mean that the theory couldn't become useful again in light of new evidence, but at the moment there's no point using it as the basis for further investigation.

 

[metis]

If we don't have any evidence to support a theory, that theory doesn't cease to exist or become impossible, it's just useless because it doesn't fit our current understanding of the universe.

That doesn't mean that the theory couldn't become useful again in light of new evidence, but at the moment there's no point using it as the basis for further investigation.

I agree with you, but the nature of science is to try and keep an open mind and also to keep looking. How many will be involved and how much effort they wish to extend is another matter.

Personally, I tend to think that finding any kind of theistic causation is likely to always end up as a dead end.

 

[Nate]

I agree with you, but the nature of science is to try and keep an open mind and also to keep looking.
How many will be involved and how much effort they wish to extend is another matter.

Yes absolutely scientists should keep an open mind, but scientific progress would take for ever if every possible theory and model were investigated to any great length, so it makes sense for us mortals to spend the valuable time we have on things we have at least some evidence of.

(P.s. I know you're not saying that every evidence-lacking theory should be explored, but that's what some people would like to happen and it's detrimental to progress)

 

[Audie]

You are completely ignorant as to what science say.

Scientists who have hypotheses that life were started by extraterrestrial, they weren’t talking about UFO or alien civilisation.

The people who do research on Abiogenesis where life started on Earth, trying to do experiments to recreate the condition of early Earth history, to make amino acid. (For instance, the
Miller–Urey experiment, performed in the early 1950s.)

The chemical compounds of certain chains of amino acids (there are many different types of amino acids) are what protein made out of.

Proteins are one of major components required for life, as well as carbohydrates and nucleic acids (eg DNA & RNA); these three biological compounds are what biologists and biochemists called living matters.

Those scientists propositioning hypotheses that life could have started extraterrestrial origin, are not so wild at all.

They are talking about amino acids found in meteorites and comets that have crashed to Earth.

A large meteorite, called Murchison meteorite, broke up in the sky and crashed in several places not far from small Australian town called Murchison. Collecting all the pieces of meteorite is that have a total mass of just over 100 kilograms.

What scientists discovered upon the meteorite was over 90 different types of amino acids.

Asteroids and meteorites in space are debris from previous nearby supernovas. And these debris are old as the solar system. They are composed of different types of metals and minerals. But the existence of amino acids in meteorites tell us that these can survive in the harsh environment of space and be preserved in the meteorite.

During the early Earth history, the Earth was bombarded frequently by comet and meteorites. The possibility that some of these meteorites and comets might contain amino acids, are very high.

Like I said before extraterrestrial origin don’t mean your strawman claim of “space alien people”. They are talking about amino acids found in meteorites, not extraterrestrial people.

You would know this if bothered to a little reading and research, instead making up nonsense about “space alien people”.

And the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extraterrestrial origin. So it isn’t “zero evidence” as you’ve claimed.

I suppose a lot of creationists assume
their shallow and indifferent thought processes
are at least equivalent to, similar to those of them
"evolutionists". Better, actually, by fact of god
backing them.

So a few quick little "gotcha" zingers are enough
to send foolish evos packing.

 

[ecco]

The notion of gods goes back at least as far as man's written history. We can find stories about gods in the writings of all civilizations, all tribes. We can analyze these writings to determine whether they are factual or fictitious. I'm not just talking about the OT, but also things like the Cherokee Creation Myth and stories about Nyame and Isis and Zeus and Shiva, et al.

No one has ever been able to substantiate any of these. Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming they are all fiction, made up by man.

I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for over 30 years,

Then you have at hand knowledge and evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. Are you denying that Zeus is a creation of man's imaginings?

... plus if if you actually read my posts as they're written you would maybe even understand that I do not use "proofs" or "proven" but do use "evidence".

You must have forgotten you wrote (my emphases):

no matter which religious concept I put forth, I can guarantee you that you cannot prove me wrong. Of course, the counter to that is that neither can I prove myself right.

Now you are not working out of a scientific paradigm but out of biased arrogance. Just because we can't establish that we're in a multiverse versus just a universe doesn't mean that there can't be a multiverse.

That's not even a good try at deflection. We weren't discussing something as esoteric and unknowable as a multiverse. We were discussing evidence regarding man's creations of gods. There is nothing arrogantly biased involved.

There is substantial evidence that gods like Thor were the creations of man's imaginings. There is no evidence that a god named Thor causes lightning, thunder or storms.

As an anthropologist, you should know that.

So, I'm already sick & tired of your know-it-all biased attitude, so this is my last post in response to you. Confucius supposedly said that the more you know the more you know you really don't know,

Were you this thin skinned as a teacher. Is this how you responded to students who challenged your views? Did you just send them to the principal's office for a paddling?

... so maybe take a humble pill and realize that just because we don't have evidence for X doesn't necessarily mean that X can't exist. You simply do not understand how science works and the restraints we're under.

I do know that when there is substantial evidence to indicate that something is fiction, then it is very scientific to conclude that something is fiction.

Would you agree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Thor and Zeus are fiction?

 

[Baroodi]

Apes are still apes because you once an organism is in a clade all of its offspring are in that clade. Pointing out that people are apes is only acknowledging the fact that the ancestor that we share with other apes would be called an ape too:

Cladistics - Wikipedia

The fact that humans are apes became obvious once we could analyze DNA. The closest relation to chimps and bonobos are humans. It makes no sense for them to be apes and more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and for us not to be apes.

+-


This has no any significance. many species has similar genomes to other species.

Behold, these apes with DNA resembling humans most likely are progeny to those human metamorphosed by God to apes. You will reject this probability but read this Quranic verse (And ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them; Be despised apes) 1:66. noble Quran
I hope one of the Jews would comment on this. Science can help to tell to which race these apes are so close to?

 

[exchemist]

+-


This has no any significance. many species has similar genomes to other species.

Behold, these apes with DNA resembling humans most likely are progeny to those human metamorphosed by God to apes. You will reject this probability but read this Quranic verse (And ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them; Be despised apes) 1:66. noble Quran
I hope one of the Jews would comment on this. Science can help to tell to which race these apes are so close to?

Unfortunately, verses from the Koran do not qualify as scientific evidence and there is no evidence to suggest humans changed into apes. Whereas we do have evidence from both fossils and DNA that humans and certain apes shared a common ancestor.

Perhaps, however, the verse is allegorical and speaks of a religion that was a retrograde step from a pre-existing one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

+-


This has no any significance. many species has similar genomes to other species.

Behold, these apes with DNA resembling humans most likely are progeny to those human metamorphosed by God to apes. You will reject this probability but read this Quranic verse (And ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them; Be despised apes) 1:66. noble Quran
I hope one of the Jews would comment on this. Science can help to tell to which race these apes are so close to?

Sorry, your book of myths is no more valid than the book of myths of other religions.

If you want someone to take your claims seriously you need to find a way to test them properly. What possible evidence could show your beliefs to be wrong? If you can't think of any tests then your ideas are worse than being wrong, they fall into the category of "Not even wrong". In the sciences one learns from one's errors. But if an idea can't be tested then one can't find the possible (and likely) errors that one has made.

 

[Baroodi]

You don't now much about the evolutionary process do you? christians exist why are there still jews?

Ok .Humour over if you really want to learn i can help you with some resources, but i won't waste my time on lost causes.

Apes have evolved too. Note, no one says we come from apes but from a common ape like ancestor.

And what has size to do with anything? Many dinosaurs were huge, their predecessors, birds are much smaller.

Lets discuss the biggest humans, cro-magnon. Fully human, they were larger than modern humans, bulkier skeleton, bigger heads, larger brains. It is understood that evolution had changed us because we have different lifestyle exercise, going to the shops instead of hunting, throwing spears etc.

Hope this helps

Thanks ChristineM. are you telling facts or telling postulations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks ChristineM. are you telling facts or telling postulations?

Facts.