you are advocating giving lack of evidence the same standing as evidence. the scientific world can not exist under those rules.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Idiot-in-Chief will bankrupt us
- Thread starter Mav88
- Start date
you are advocating giving lack of evidence the same standing as evidence. the scientific world can not exist under those rules.
"The Idiot-in-Chief will bankrupt us"
Which one?
Which one?
Quote from vhehn:
you are advocating giving lack of evidence the same standing as evidence. the scientific world can not exist under those rules.
evidence can mean different things to different people. Some see evidence of a deity in everything. Some don't. anyways we'll agree to disagree.
Quote from Thunderdog:
We may not know much, but it's all we got. Close your mind to your cognitive reasoning capabilities, suspend your critical faculties, and you know even less; you don't move forward.
No one said close cognitive reasoning capabilities. The whole issue is people who say they know this or know that, especially in terms of God or the Universe, is absolutely arrogant.
The whole statement I am attacking is vhehn arrogant post
agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact.
We as humans, in our tiny little spec of the universe, simply do not know enough to make a rational analysis. If you think you do, that makes you an even bigger idiot.
This whole thing started with the evolution-creationism debate, which I think is a faulty debate because they do not answer the same question.
Evolution seeks to explain the mechanism in which species change overtime. Some species die out and others split and become new species. It explain how traits of the current population were handed down from previous generations. The traits that helped survival would be passed to others, while traits that did not help survival would be killed off. Thats it in a nutshell.
Creationism seeks to explain the very birth of life. How did the first generation come into existance? Evolution relies on past generations and the envirnoment they lived in the explain their current traits, but where did the first generation come from? Evolution does not explain this. So it is a faulty debate that 99% of people are too dense to understand.
Please Vhehn, use your rational analysis based on fact and tell me how the first generation of life came into being. I'd love to hear it.
Quote from drjekyllus:
No one said close cognitive reasoning capabilities. The whole issue is people who say they know this or know that, especially in terms of God or the Universe, is absolutely arrogant.
The whole statement I am attacking is vhehn arrogant post
We as humans, in our tiny little spec of the universe, simply do not know enough to make a rational analysis. If you think you do, that makes you an even bigger idiot.
This whole thing started with the evolution-creationism debate, which I think is a faulty debate because they do not answer the same question.
Evolution seeks to explain the mechanism in which species change overtime. Some species die out and others split and become new species. It explain how traits of the current population were handed down from previous generations. The traits that helped survival would be passed to others, while traits that did not help survival would be killed off. Thats it in a nutshell.
Creationism seeks to explain the very birth of life. How did the first generation come into existance? Evolution relies on past generations and the envirnoment they lived in the explain their current traits, but where did the first generation come from? Evolution does not explain this. So it is a faulty debate that 99% of people are too dense to understand.
Please Vhehn, use your rational analysis based on fact and tell me how the first generation of life came into being. I'd love to hear it.
Good points. It is not "rational" to think that something can come from nothing.
Or is it?
Not so. You are missing the bigger picture. If you were to read Dawkins's The God Delusion, the British ethologist and evolutionary biologist explains the current scientific understanding regarding both the origin of life and evolution of species. It was simple enough even for me to understand. Try it.Quote from drjekyllus:
...Evolution relies on past generations and the envirnoment they lived in the explain their current traits, but where did the first generation come from? Evolution does not explain this. So it is a faulty debate that 99% of people are too dense to understand...
Quote from Thunderdog:
Not so. You are missing the bigger picture. If you were to read Dawkins's The God Delusion, the British ethologist and evolutionary biologist explains the current scientific understanding regarding both the origin of life and evolution of species. It was simple enough even for me to understand. Try it.
Freud's "the future of an illusion" is good as well.
Quote from Thunderdog:
Not so. You are missing the bigger picture. If you were to read Dawkins's The God Delusion, the British ethologist and evolutionary biologist explains the current scientific understanding regarding both the origin of life and evolution of species. It was simple enough even for me to understand. Try it.
I will check it out by I still stand by original claim that evolution and origin of life are two different debates.
Even Wikipedia says
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
There are a set of models of how live might have begun. The bottomline is we really don't know.
"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:
Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primary of Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life."