The point is not clear because once again you fail to understand even the simplest aspects of TOE
like I said before multiple times, I am not interested in simple, nor your assessment of me or my qualifications, rather I'd like the details. Do you think you can do that?
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
TOE does not say that one species replaces another, merely that it evolves from another. Whether the earlier species continues or becomes extinct is dependent on the environment and competition. This is basic stuff.
Details please!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
There are two competing theories on the table. Evolution and Creationism. One of them fits the data much better than the other.
The assumptions seem to fit TOE better, but there just seems too many assumptions. A very incomplete computer generated explanation for the evolution of the eye, that is then taken as fact, but this can only happen if you discount all the other factors that would have to evolve; at the same time as the eye. If you programme a computer to find a given solution, then hey presto, we have an eye.
You seriously cannot expect every one to accept this as it stands.
Then there is the evolution of a full skeletal system, from the appearance of the first bone. I honestly do not think it is enough, just to list a catalogue of species from simple to complex, then say the forces of nature made all this happen.
In the spirit of searching for God.
Eric
.
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
i think creationism cannot take evolution as fact,
from an islamic point of view at least.
why?
because religion teaches of angels and other unworldy creations.
even if one believes in TOE it would still not reconsile with the belief of how things were created.. or indeed still are.
it may be a fair while for science to come to terms with what actually is and how it is explained.
and its probably fair to say that no athiest can even imagine such concepts without basing them in material and tangible evidence.
so even if you could not dispute TOE at some point in time, its still leaves such a huge gap in understanding between a thiestic and athiestic viewpoint.
arguably finding the missing link between "what is" and "what is missing" is why we are here.
even more interesting is how i am put at odds with my own belief, in a purely scientific universe of biological and physical systems of order..
which science corroberates, the concept of god and all creation is probably light years ahead of any understanding.
as a seprate note: when we ask for evidence, it should be akin to something like this:
you see exactly the gene location, the type of mutation in the case of all of these it is trinucleotide repeats which actually in and of themselves put a dent in the 'natural selection' story and it then it gives you the outcome and the outcome as we can see in all of them is a disease not a super well adapted human.
Try that for all other mutations and see what the outcome is. Try it also for DNA breaks, and translocations and then sit attentively and listen to this pseudo intellect speak of fifth grade biology and how we missed the boat.
The science is so beyond his imagination that the best he can do is insult and repeat himself and pad meaningless words next to one another!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
The assumptions seem to fit TOE better, but there just seems too many assumptions. A very incomplete computer generated explanation for the evolution of the eye, that is then taken as fact, but this can only happen if you discount all the other factors that would have to evolve; at the same time as the eye. If you programme a computer to find a given solution, then hey presto, we have an eye.
I've always thought it strange that a God who can do anything, is somehow held unable to do this - to create a system of evolution to match His system of gravity etc.
These are interesting questions for biologists but they don't change the overall picture which is simple forms first, then the gradually increasing possibility of more complex forms.
I repeat: from a Creationist point of view, why do we not see a fish or a cow in the early history of life? Why is it simple first, then more complex?
If the very first thing I looked into in that timeline had an error in it, then what can I expect from the rest? If you ever studied statistics you'd know a bit about this!
As for there not being a cow at the beginning of time on earth, it may be for several reasons. 1. The earth couldn't sustain such life form. There was no oxygen so the cow wouldn't be able to breath. There were no trees so the cow wouldn't get food. It would only die out! Would God create something to die out as quickly as it was made? Or do you say that God should've created all that too to sustain the higher creatures? Maybe the prokaryotes and eukarytes and other bacteria sort of organisms were needed to make the earth ready for future lifeforms. For example, for making oxygen and for making the soil fertile, etc.
2. God does everything for a reason. Cows are created for human food. Why would God create a cow if there was no one to milk it and no one to slaughter it for food? Nothing in life is made uselessly.
For example, whn people use certain pestacides to kill pests or to finish flies, etc. the organism mutates and becomes resistant to every kind of pesticide ever made. This is not evolution. This is God's work. It is very much possible that those particular organisms are needed to keep the ecosystem stable and if one type gets extinct, it will affect the whole ecosystem. And God keeps them from becoming extinct. But that isn't the case with other creatures that do go extinct (or are endangered) like certain birds, dolphins, etc. They don't mutate to avoid dying out. for example, elephants are becoming endangered because they are being killed for tusks but elephants haven't stopped growing tusks.
Why do we see prokaryotes followed by cyanobacteria followed by eukaryotes? Why is the order simple to more complex?
AS shown in the Wikipedia article I posted previously, some studies state that the more complex eukaryotes came first and then the simpler prokaryotes were made from them. so it's not true that things are going from simple to more complex. 2. the timeline is not very accurate. it is based on one set of assumptions although there is contrary evidence.
If the very first thing I looked into in that timeline had an error in it, then what can I expect from the rest?
It's not an error, it's showing the current consensus viewpoint. in any case, what are you are not appreciating is that all the competing theories relating to this issue are evolution theories - none of them are disproving it. In the end, it doesn't make much difference to the overall pattern, and it doesn't change the overall issue of why simple first, then more complex.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
As for there not being a cow at the beginning of time on earth, it may be for several reasons. 1. The earth couldn't sustain such life form. There was no oxygen so the cow wouldn't be able to breath
Why have such an immense amount of time before life even makes it on the scene? Is God limited by His own Creation?
The pattern of simpler to more complex continues all the way through, even after conditions become more similar to the present day. Why? Creationism has no explanation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
God does everything for a reason. Cows are created for human food. Why would God create a cow if there was no one to milk it and no one to slaughter it for food? Nothing in life is made uselessly.
In fact cows were domesticated quite recently. Every farm animal we have, everything we grow has only been domesticated in very recent times. A mere 12 thousand years ago we had no agriculture at all, a tiny fraction of the time we have been on this world. So this makes no sense. The cow was very happily getting along being milked by its young before we interfered.
Last edited by Independent; 01-19-2014 at 07:17 PM.
For example, whn people use certain pestacides to kill pests or to finish flies, etc. the organism mutates and becomes resistant to every kind of pesticide ever made. This is not evolution. This is God's work. It is very much possible that those particular organisms are needed to keep the ecosystem stable and if one type gets extinct, it will affect the whole ecosystem. And God keeps them from becoming extinct.
So why does he do that with bacteria etc. which become resistant to drugs and therefore continue to kill people and cause them suffering? Evolution explains this perfectly, your explanation suggests that god is purposefully killing people and stopping us fighting infections. Why would he do that?
Why have such an immense amount of time before life even makes it on the scene? Is God limited by His own Creation?
There are many many planets but not all of them have life. It may be in the future God may decide to put living things on one of them. It's upto God to do as He likes.
If things could simply evolve from nothing, then why isn't there life on other planets? Surely something could evolve on some other planet as well.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
It's not an error, it's showing the current consensus viewpoint. in any case, what are you are not appreciating is that all the competing theories relating to this issue are evolution theories - none of them are disproving it. In the end, it doesn't make much difference to the overall pattern, and it doesn't change the overall issue of why simple first, then more complex.
No, it's lying by omission. And we're talking about the very first item on the timeline. I didn't even look into the others. Who knows what other errors or differences we will find concerning the other items on the list.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
The pattern of simpler to more complex continues all the way through, even after conditions become more similar to the present day. Why? Creationism has no explanation.
But there's evidence that the more complex existed first. Also the dates are not reliable. Some say eukaryotes first appeared 1.7 billion years and another study says eukaryotes first appeared 3 billion years ago. How do you reconcile the different figures?
If things could simply evolve from nothing, then why isn't there life on other planets? Surely something could evolve on some other planet as well.
There may well be - we have only actually looked at 3 planets (and not in much detail). If we find life on Mars or on Titan then we can safely assume that life is inevitable wherever it is possible.
He doesn't have to reconcile anything for you, he doesn't even have to make sense, he just has to hammer the nonsense enough times and then speak as if authority figure along with the other guy with the usual 'Royal we' as if they're involved in any of it.
He doesn't have to reconcile anything for you, he doesn't even have to make sense, he just has to hammer the nonsense enough times and then speak as if authority figure along with the other guy with the usual 'Royal we' as if they're involved in any of it.
That's it. It's just me and Independant pushing evolution. Just us. Not every single science department in every single reputable academic institution in the world. Nope. Just us. Me and Indy. The evolution boys. The Evo squad. Team natural selection. Not 99% of scientists in every single field of science across the world. Nope. Just us.
Imagine it was all of those other people too, though - how would you so easily dismiss their attachment to the theory? All of those experts? All of those lives dedicated to the study of evolution?
Not every single science department in every single reputable academic institution
Every university pushes many courses, whether the content is true or not isn't in question here, because no true scientist would ever venture to say anything is 100% infallible even in medicine we say consistent with, we never give a definitive diagnosis even when a dz matches all major and minor criteria for what it is- so pray do tell how it is that you're more sure than the scientists, furthermore why should your logical fallacies be the crux of this argument? Why not answer the actual questions that folks post in lieu of this scientist says this and this institution says that. You have no credibility whatsoever!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
If things could simply evolve from nothing, then why isn't there life on other planets? Surely something could evolve on some other planet as well.
It is extremely likely that there is life on other planets but we will probably all be dead before we find that out.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
No, it's lying by omission. And we're talking about the very first item on the timeline. I didn't even look into the others. Who knows what other errors or differences we will find concerning the other items on the list.
The timeline is derived mainly from the fossil record and it is not a lie, it's just a reporting of information. This shows a big gap between the appearance of the first prokaryotes and the first eukaryotes. Those scientists who for other reasons think that eukaryotes came first or at the same time need to explain that gap.
Whether or not they succeed in overturning the previous consensus makes absolutely no difference to the overall conception of TOE. You are obsessing about details that don't matter for the theory as a whole.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
But there's evidence that the more complex existed first.
Another common misconception about TOE which I've already mentioned is that it only travels in one direction - ie that it can only get more complex. This is not correct. As we move through the timeline more complex creatures become possible (because of the cumulative evolutionary developments). That's why we don't get cows appearing in the Archean Era (this is not explained in Creationism). But if an environmental niche is more appropriately filled by a simpler lifeform, this can also happen.
One of the best examples of this is what is known as the 'island rule', by which creatures shrink and simplify to cope with more limited resources. The so called 'hobbit man' or 'homo floriensis' may be a particularly remarkable case of this.
So, it is not a challenge for TOE either way whether prokaryotes or eukaryotes came first.
It is a challenge for Creationism because there are an estimated 100 million other species yet to come that do not appear in this period, and every one of them is more complex than either prokaryotes or eukaryotes.
Perhaps you think that is just luck?
Last edited by Independent; 01-19-2014 at 09:33 PM.
Every university pushes many courses, whether the content is true or not isn't in question here, because no true scientist would ever venture to say anything is 100% infallible even in medicine we say consistent with, we never give a definitive diagnosis even when a dz matches all major and minor criteria for what it is- so pray do tell how it is that you're more sure than the scientists, furthermore why should your logical fallacies be the crux of this argument? Why not answer the actual questions that folks post in lieu of this scientist says this and this institution says that. You have no credibility whatsoever!
best,
Now, at every step here, those supporting ToE have clearly said "we don't know everything", "no scientific theory is ever 100% fact", have you not been reading?
Your arguments seem to smack of desperation, consisting less and less of actual argument every time.
The assumptions seem to fit TOE better, but there just seems too many assumptions. A very incomplete computer generated explanation for the evolution of the eye, that is then taken as fact, but this can only happen if you discount all the other factors that would have to evolve; at the same time as the eye. If you programme a computer to find a given solution, then hey presto, we have an eye.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I've always thought it strange that a God who can do anything, is somehow held unable to do this - to create a system of evolution to match His system of gravity etc.
The problem is not with God, the problem is with the system of evolution, and the failure to explain the evolution of the eye, in a full and honest way. As many of you claim there is no God, we need some science, as opposed to a lot of assumptions, and incomplete explanations.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
A Question which Atheists could not answer (OP)
Muhaba liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks