- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:11 pm to ApexTiger
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:11 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Regardless, if you believe in God, is it really a stretch to believe the father in heaven made the earth to look old (while creating it)? Or maybe his day is more like a million?
Sure, as long as you're cool with worshipping a deceptive deity.
0
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:By whose definition?
By definition, life cannot evolve from non life
quote:No!
Evolution requires genetic material for natural selection
Evolution is simply the process of evolving. The term is sweeping. e.g., BHO's evolution on the issue of gay marriage. It certainly can refer to the Theory of Evolution as well. But there is no limitation in that regard.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Simply saying "in fact" doesn't make it a fact.quote:In fact, it is a perfectly accurate term.
Attributing the term "evolve" to abiogenesis is misleading and deceptive
quote:Firstly, it should be noted that evolution is not an atheistic theory. Secondly, there is only a continuum by the loosest definition of the word. There is a clear line dividing evolution from abiogenesis, and the mechanisms involved in each process are distinct. If your criteria for a "continuum" are simply that one thing had to happen before another thing, then it seems you require a Theory of Everything in order to accept evolution, as many, many things had to happen in order for abiogenesis, and then evolution, to occur.quote:Are you implying an atheistic precept would not involve a continuum between the two? Seriously?
Why is it a ridiculous position? Evolution and abiogenesis are two different processes that require two different explanations.
Pointing out that abiogenesis has not been properly explained is not sufficient to disprove evolution, as has been attempted in this thread.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:46 pm to Korkstand
quote:Of course not. It has nothing to do with "simply saying" anything. It has to do with the fact itself.
Simply saying "in fact" doesn't make it a fact.
quote:In terms of exclusivity, neither is abiogenesis. However, in terms of atheism, abiogenesis as a precursor at some point is requisite.
Firstly, it should be noted that evolution is not an atheistic theory.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:48 pm to Korkstand
quote:Well I'd agree wholeheartedly with that.
Pointing out that abiogenesis has not been properly explained is not sufficient to disprove evolution.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:52 pm to ApexTiger
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today..... Michael Ruse
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Evolution is simply the process of evolving. The term is sweeping. e.g., BHO's evolution on the issue of gay marriage. It certainly can refer to the Theory of Evolution as well. But there is no limitation in that regard.
Jesus Christ, we're talking about the biological definition of evolution. Stop being obtuse.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:By the definition laid out in the theory of evolution. That is what we're talking about, isn't it?
By whose definition?
quote:If you want to apply the broad, general definition to what is obviously a more narrow discussion, in an effort to mislead and/or deceive, then sure.
No!
Evolution is simply the process of evolving.
But if you want to have an honest discussion, then you have to define evolution as the process by which living organisms pass down traits, and how those traits are selected for. It should be apparent that a different process led to abiogenesis, and the lack of an explanation for that cannot be used to invalidate the explanation of evolution.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:56 pm to mattloc
quote:
Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today..... Micheal Ruse
quote:An appropriate last name considering the nature of his statement.
Micheal Ruse
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:01 pm to Korkstand
quote:So any theory of chemical evolution resulting in abiogenesis has now been abandoned by the scientific community, according to some on this board
It should be apparent that a different process led to abiogenesis,
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:quote:Well I'd agree wholeheartedly with that.
Pointing out that abiogenesis has not been properly explained is not sufficient to disprove evolution.
Then why would you say that it's a "ridiculous position, attempting to partition a theoretical continuum", if not to imply that we cannot understand and properly describe evolution without an understanding of abiogenesis?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:08 pm to mattloc
Evolution is a lie from the pits of hell.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:09 pm to Korkstand
quote:No. It's a matter of familiarity with the language.
If you want to apply the broad, general definition to what is obviously a more narrow discussion, in an effort to mislead and/or deceive, then sure.
quote:No. Confining the term "evolve" to anything but evolutionary theory is problematic though. Perhaps you should review the original reference.
But if you want to have an honest discussion, then you have to define evolution as the process by which living organisms pass down traits, and how those traits are selected for.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:13 pm to mattloc
quote:
So any theory of chemical evolution resulting in abiogenesis has now been abandoned by the scientific community, according to some on this board
Not at all. What I said (and what you quoted me as saying) was that the process that led to abiogenesis was different than the process that drives evolution as described in the theory. Similarly, the process that drives the evolution of stars is obviously quite different than the evolution of life, even though the evolution of a star is a prerequisite to abiogenesis and, in turn, evolution.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:14 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Evolution is a lie from the pits of hell.
one of our elected leaders actual beliefs...and guess what, he is on the science committee.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:19 pm to Korkstand
Are there any prominent scientific proponents of a chemical origin to abiogenesis? or is the preferred line of thinking, that life came in a meteor.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Are you referring to the guy who kicked off the "life evolved from non-life" debate? His mistake was conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Had he limited his argument to "god created life" vs. "life happened by chance", then his "blind faith" argument would have been valid.
Perhaps you should review the original reference.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:28 pm to mattloc
quote:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today..... Michael Ruse
I'm embarrassed for you
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:33 pm to Korkstand
quote:Because the statement I was replying to was all-encompassing and fairly silly. It referred to all scientists.
Then why would you say that it's a "ridiculous position, attempting to partition a theoretical continuum"
Either abiogenetic origin occurred or it didn't.
Right?
Certainly we can agree abiogenesis as a postulate is at least reasonable speculation.
Right?
Certainly there are a litany of scientists who believe it represents a most likely explanation.
Right?
Certainly within that line of thought, abiogenesis and evolutionary theory represent a continuum.
Right?
I guess I'm missing the controversy here.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:37 pm to mattloc
quote:What's the difference where the chemical precursors to life crossed the fuzzy boundary into life? Either it happened somewhere by chance, or god created life on earth. The only thing the theory of evolution says is that god did not create all life on earth as we see them today, or even remotely similar to how we see them today.
Are there any prominent scientific proponents of a chemical origin to abiogenesis? or is the preferred line of thinking, that life came in a meteor.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News