Must Evolution [read: abiogenesis] and the Big Bang be taken on faith?

[Euler's Identity]

I wasn't "pressured" or "manipulated" by anyone. I attended no Church for a lot of my life though I wanted to. I harshly studied the bible for myself as you seemed to ignore in your post and as I studied for myself I became more repelled from Christianity. Then later on when I reached a reasonable amount of maturity logic was the nail in the coffin.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[Didymus]

And you dont see any correlation there?

 

Give you a hint. Replace a bible with a book on physics. If a person attended no classes, had no instruction, didn't ask for any guidance... But studied a physics book by himself for years, and decided physics as a whole repulsed him and was wrong....

 

Still no problem with thats? Or is it a strawman when applied to your current faith, but perfectly logical when equally applied to a contrary faith?

[Endy0816]

The physics book would be testable in a way the religious books are not.

 

Really the answer to the original question. You can test everything and work through the logic to arrive at your own conclusion.

[Euler's Identity]

And you dont see any correlation there?

 

Give you a hint. Replace a bible with a book on physics. If a person attended no classes, had no instruction, didn't ask for any guidance... But studied a physics book by himself for years, and decided physics as a whole repulsed him and was wrong....

 

Still no problem with thats? Or is it a strawman when applied to your current faith, but perfectly logical when equally applied to a contrary faith?

 

Just because I didn't attend a church and read the bible solo means I had no communication with others of my religion? I dont think so. Besides, I can read through a simple physics book, test the assertions, and the physics book makes no assertions on how I should live my life. If for some stupid reason I do decide that my physics book is wrong, I won't be told I will go to hell as a result. In addition, a physics book doesn't tell you that if you pray and worship the god of physics he will give you understanding of the world.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[Didymus]

Deflect as much as you like. Whoever gave you the ideas you have was not qualified to teach you that subject and did a poor job.

 

Endy: and that's how it should be. However, there is an amount of pressure to conform to the popular faith of the community based on cheap social pressure instead of evidence (for example, this thread.)

 

There are a LOT of Christians out there.... That, by itself, does not make Christianity fact. There are also a lot of junk scientists spreading obviously ridiculous theories as supporting evidence for a baseless popular opinion. Yes, that tooth looks a bit different than a human.... That doesn't make it a missing link, it's from a modern pig. DNA tests debunked it, yet people still claim that this is among the "vast" evidence of spontaneous abiogenesis. Look at those vestigial legs in whales and snakes! Proof that each evolved from an animal with legs, and therefore interkingdom evolution and therefore abiogenesis.... (Or that's how those animals make babies). Look at this embyology chart!..... That was an admitted hoax a century ago.... Still in school books, presented as fact.

 

 

As much as people repeat that it's not a matter of faith... Ask for evidence.... Get poorly presented Wikipedia articles chalk full of circular reasoning. ... Even at this point, all the articles provided (unless I've missed one) are all ad populum claims about people who have supporting evidence for macroevolution.... None on the topic of abiogenesis... Which apparently is verified by extention when it's convenient.... Yet "isn't part of the theory" when inconvenient.

[Arete]

However, there is an amount of pressure to conform to the popular faith of the community based on cheap social pressure instead of evidence (for example, this thread.)

 

In my two posts I used citations from:

 

- The UC Davis Genome center

- The Wikipedia page on common descent

- The peer reviewed journal, Science

- The peer reviewed journal, Current Biology

- The peer reviewed journal, Nature

-The high school teaching resource, Schmoop

 

Could you please justify why these sources are not "evidence"

 

 

 

Get poorly presented Wikipedia articles chalk full of circular reasoning.

 

1. Could you please point out precisely where the Wikipedia page on common descent is circular?

2. As above, Wikipedia was clearly not the only source provided.

3. Could you please justify why peer reviewed scientific articles are "ad populum"? The reporting of original studies would appear to be the precise opposite of ad populum...

 

It would appear you are blanketly dismissing sources as invalid without actually determining what the sources are, let alone their veracity.

 

 

 

None on the topic of abiogenesis...

 

 

I quoted you verbatim in post #23. That quote was specifically a rejection macro-evolution - which is what I addressed. Shifting the goalposts of the discussion to abiogeneisis and claiming deficiency is a logical fallacy.

 

 

But while we're on the topic of sources and evidence, you'll need to start practicing what you preach, and citing some of your assertions so we know what you're referring to. I.e.,

 

Yes, that tooth looks a bit different than a human.... That doesn't make it a missing link, it's from a modern pig. DNA tests debunked it..

 

Not sure what you're talking about - citation please.

 

 

Look at those vestigial legs in whales and snakes! Proof that each evolved from an animal with legs, and therefore interkingdom evolution and therefore abiogenesis.... (Or that's how those animals make babies)

 

 

a) Snakes don't have vestigial legs

b) Cetaceans do not use theirs during reproduction.

 

 

Look at this embyology chart!..... That was an admitted hoax a century ago.... Still in school books, presented as fact.

 

 

Again it's unclear what you're referring to - citation please.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Arete

[john5746]

Didymus: Deflect as much as you like. Whoever gave you the ideas you have was not qualified to teach you that subject and did a poor job.

Edited September 18, 2013 by john5746

[Euler's Identity]

Deflect as much as you like. Whoever gave you the ideas you have was not qualified to teach you that subject and did a poor job.

 

Endy: and that's how it should be. However, there is an amount of pressure to conform to the popular faith of the community based on cheap social pressure instead of evidence (for example, this thread.)

 

There are a LOT of Christians out there.... That, by itself, does not make Christianity fact. There are also a lot of junk scientists spreading obviously ridiculous theories as supporting evidence for a baseless popular opinion. Yes, that tooth looks a bit different than a human.... That doesn't make it a missing link, it's from a modern pig. DNA tests debunked it, yet people still claim that this is among the "vast" evidence of spontaneous abiogenesis. Look at those vestigial legs in whales and snakes! Proof that each evolved from an animal with legs, and therefore interkingdom evolution and therefore abiogenesis.... (Or that's how those animals make babies). Look at this embyology chart!..... That was an admitted hoax a century ago.... Still in school books, presented as fact.

 

 

As much as people repeat that it's not a matter of faith... Ask for evidence.... Get poorly presented Wikipedia articles chalk full of circular reasoning. ... Even at this point, all the articles provided (unless I've missed one) are all ad populum claims about people who have supporting evidence for macroevolution.... None on the topic of abiogenesis... Which apparently is verified by extention when it's convenient.... Yet "isn't part of the theory" when inconvenient.

 

You sound like Kent Hovind, nobody mainstream claims definite proof of abiogenesis as you seem to believe, all at this point is speculation and educated looks into the past. As stated many times on this forum, just because something isn't currently thoroughly explained doesn't mean "godditit". As you seem to believe, I had no teacher other than the bible itself. Which according to its very own claims tells me that I can gain the necessary knowledge and be enlightened by reading it. I wasn't influenced by some "false teacher" as I stated in the past. Yeah, the whole Jesus idea is nice, but it is 100% unsupported and I have never one time been able to verify it for myself when I was Christian. Which also contributed to my departure from religion. You seem to believe that experts just see a fossil and immediately evaluate that this and that are related on first sight. Without the PROVEN, TESTED, HARD WORK of these same scientists you wouldn't be enjoying the luxury of this debate. But you seem you believe that you are somehow more qualified than the phds who spend years and years of their life to their particular field to discover what they have.

[Didymus]

Arete, your post deserves more time than I have at the moment. I'll get to yours after work.

 

John: ...you seem to think a lot of people with PhDs are unqualified. Ok.

 

Ei: ...then you missed a few books.... Or used a pretty horrible translation. Did you actually look into the original Greek and Hebrew to verify the passages as correctly translated? I agree, mainstream "Christianity" is messed up.... But has nothing to do with the bible. ...yet anti-biblical teachings seem to have given you a prejudice. For one, "hell" seems to be a primary point of concern for you... Yet is a blatant mistranslation... Likely invented by "a certain church" as a way to threaten people into making donations so that people can make monetary contributions to buy indulgences and avoid the punishment their church made up.

 

...gotta be careful about those things. As for Hovind.... I've watched his stuff.... And a majority is easily disproven and skimmed over.... There are a number of darn good points. Polystrate trees, the inaccuracies of carbon dating, etc. ... But a literal 6k year earth, giants, and what he talks about with seeds.... Not so much. Also, I'm pretty sure his claims about that woodpecker are completely unfounded.

 

...yes, people do skim past legitimate work if they think they can get recognition and financial reimbursement without having to do things... In the community, you're paid for results. There are a LOT of cases of lab coats giving the results they're paid for.... By cooking the books or outright lying.

 

Humans are too quick to put their faith in a man... Either with a white coat or with a cleric position.... It's a part of human nature to cling to simplistic bliss of authority

[Ringer]

Alright, how about when you have a point about evolution and such that hasn't been debunked here, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , go ahead and bring it up, otherwise it's a waste of time.

[Arete]

Alright, how about when you have a point about evolution and such that hasn't been debunked here, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , go ahead and bring it up, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

The clarification I've requested is because rather than addressing actual arguments, Didymus is using a general rejection of source material as "ad populum" and "circular" - and now this has expanded to a sweeping accusation that scientists are routinely "cooking the books or outright lying."

 

This tactic is simply not good enough. Argumentum ad populum refers to a specific logical fallacy by which something is given as true because a lot of people believe it to be so. If you want to level this at a secondary source, like Wikipedia, you need to cite precisely where the article states that something is true because a lot of people believe it - as opposed to a lot of data supporting it. Furthermore, the citations this argumentative style has been leveled at include experimental data, an explanation as to how an experiment can be an appeal to popular opinion is needed. If this is being expanded to an accusation that this experimental data has been fabricated or dishonestly reported, specifics need to be proven, otherwise it's simply guilt by supposed association.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Arete

[Euler's Identity]

Ei: ...then you missed a few books.... Or used a pretty horrible translation. Did you actually look into the original Greek and Hebrew to verify the passages as correctly translated? I agree, mainstream "Christianity" is messed up.... But has nothing to do with the bible. ...yet anti-biblical teachings seem to have given you a prejudice. For one, "hell" seems to be a primary point of concern for you... Yet is a blatant mistranslation... Likely invented by "a certain church" as a way to threaten people into making donations so that people can make monetary contributions to buy indulgences and avoid the punishment their church made up.

 

...gotta be careful about those things. As for Hovind.... I've watched his stuff.... And a majority is easily disproven and skimmed over.... There are a number of darn good points. Polystrate trees, the inaccuracies of carbon dating, etc. ... But a literal 6k year earth, giants, and what he talks about with seeds.... Not so much. Also, I'm pretty sure his claims about that woodpecker are completely unfounded.

 

Fair enough, which translation do you suggest is correct? I have abt 5 versions in my house here, in addition to whatever one I want on the internet where I can go cite that version. Yep, I agree, a lot of the NT stuff is pretty cool and warm, but that doesn't make it truth. As for your argument that we're just taking our logical beliefs on faith, I challenge you to put down all of the anatomical, genetic, and cellular evidence for common decent. Make sure that if you do not have a thorough understanding of evolution and its mechanisms you learn it. Here's some good resources for getting started:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE&list=PLB225304713046D4F

 

The book and theory that is most famous for starting it all as I'm sure you know:

 

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf

 

Also just in case you do not understand exactly how DNA & RNA work to make proteins you should find a book or playlist by a legitimate source, I do not have one because I rigorously learned genetics in the classroom, so I have not yet learned more about it though I'm sure the resources are out there. Afterwards I challenge you to counter all of the types of evidence I stated.

[Ringer]

The clarification I've requested is because rather than addressing actual arguments, Didymus is using a general rejection of source material as "ad populum" and "circular" - and now this has expanded to a sweeping accusation that scientists are routinely "cooking the books or outright lying."

[snipped]

I agree completely with you. I was just pointing out that most any claim he is going to make has been covered time and again in case he was unaware. His general rejection is a completely different arguing point which you have been covering quite capably so I wasn't going to address it.

[Arete]

I agree completely with you. I was just pointing out that most any claim he is going to make has been covered time and again in case he was unaware. His general rejection is a completely different arguing point which you have been covering quite capably so I wasn't going to address it.

 

Not a problem, I think we're both in complete agreeance - however I think we need to have Didymus address the issue of seemingly baseless rejection of evidence before we can expect to have a useful discussion of additional source material. Given the lack of response it unfortunately looks like that's not going to happen, and this thread will die a natural death.

[Ophiolite]

I agree that the extent to which evolution has been observed, it's rational and verifiable, however great faith is placed in the foundation of evolution, which is biogenisis. Just because a person relates the two does not mean that person doesn't understand the differences.

 

I'm not sure if this contains a typo. Did you mean abiogenesis, which you have mentioned several times, or did you really mean biogenesis. The latter, life-from-life, would certainly be the foundation of evolution, but hardly requires any faith. So, I'll assume you meant abiogenesis.

 

So, I challenge you on this point - I do not accept that abiogenesis is seen as the foundation of evolution. Obviously, the many variants of biologists tend to accept that the life forms they study arose originally by abiogenesis, but they do not consider this relevant to their evolutionary studies. If I am mistaken you can very easily prove me wrong. Randomly select forty or fifty research papers from peer reviewed journals whose declared topic is evolution. Now show that a substantial number of them mention abiogenesis.

 

Indeed, prior to the Miller-Urey experimental work in the early 1950s, and despite the Oparin-Haldane theoretical work twenty years earlier, abiogenesis was a no-go area for biologists. Why? Because it was not thought that there was any viable method of testing hypotheses in this area. Therefore it fell outside the realm of science. Yet this is the same period in which the Modern Synthesis was born. If modern concepts of evolution were being formulated at the same time as abiogenesis was rejected as a valid area of scieintifc research you cannot say it forms the basis of evolution.

 

Perhaps you will retract that part of your argument now.

[BusaDave9]

It doesn't take any faith to believe science. Any detail in science can be challenged and this is how science evolves. Evolution is a fact. Scientist only debate the details now. The issue is you must understand the current scientific theories to debate them. A collage graduate questioning the origin of life doesn't have much credibility. The scientists that are shaping the modern understanding of the origins of life have been studying this for years and they get thier information from the other scientists that have spent thier lives studying this. Then you get a layman saying “how did evolution begin? In our best experiments, we can barely produce a fraction of a protein” You can't expect a scientist to mix up some mud in a test tube and have a single cell crawl out. Look at the timeline of evolution. It takes one million years for a new species to develop. Such as a new finch. The first life was nothing nearly as complex as a cell. It was a self replicating molecule. If it broke, similar atoms could combine to make it whole again. The part that broke off could do the same. It took 2 billion years before a cell developed. It took another billion years for multicellular life to form. As life became more complex it could evolve faster but keep in mind nothing can evolve in the short timeframes we humans are used to. This is why people doubt evolution. They want to see it with their own eyes. We have proof.

Once multi cell organisms evolved evolution was faster (now we are talking 100's of millions of years). Five and six hundred million years ago were the first plants and the simplest animals. That's how far back you have to go to see the connection between plants and animals. 300 million years ago were the first reptiles.

The first and biggest problem that people have that doubt evolution is they fail to understand the timeline.

Edited October 2, 2013 by BusaDave9