Good news - evolution now accepted by majority of Americans!

roscoe

Well-known member
-One of the identifying characteristics of a cult is that the cult members swear that all of the cults but theirs are cults... .

If you can't tell he difference between science, which has produced the x-ray, antibiotics, the Moon landing, modern agriculture, and satellite communications, and a cult, then that doesn't speak very highly of your discernment. But it says nothing about science or scientists.

Science doesn't need you to validate it - it produces the goods.
 

BuzzinSATX

New member
Science has NEVER proven where life came from in the first place. All the crap about evolving from single cells to multiple cell organisms is also foolish theory.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Science has NEVER proven where life came from in the first place. All the crap about evolving from single cells to multiple cell organisms is also foolish theory.

Science has never claimed to have PROVEN where life came from. However, all organisms on Earth are composed, more or less entirely, of the same 22 amino acids. A series of convincing experiments certainly point to a material origin, using those amino acids. The MIller-Urey Experiment, the Volcanic Discharge experiment, and the H2S discharge experiment have, in combination, produced 12 of those amino acids from chemical compounds commonly found on Earth simply by adding a little electricity and/or heat. That means, in just a few weeks of experimentation, scientists were literally able to spontaneously generate more than half the building blocks of all life from common compounds like water, ammonia, methane, etc.

If you are interested in this, look up the Murchison Meteorite. It not only contains several amino acids, it has one of the four RNA bases found in all organisms on Earth. It fell in Australia in 1969 and is ~7 billion years old. So we have not only our our amino acids, but genetic elements, all formed naturally from the interaction of energy and chemistry.

This suggests that under certain circumstances, life would be able to evolve from the injection of energy (heat, lightning, etc.) into a particular molecular soup, without invoking some sort of supernatural force. Science will always look for the explanation that does not require a force that cannot be seen, tested, or examined, when an alternative hypothesis that only invokes physics and chemistry is available. In this case, it is.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Science has NEVER proven where life came from in the first place. All the crap about evolving from single cells to multiple cell organisms is also foolish theory.

Oh - evolving from single cells to multiple-cell organisms is easy. It has happened multiple times in evolutionary history, and biologists have definitely made that happen in a test tube, repeatedly. Once you have a single-celled organism, it is off to the races (give or take a billion years).
 

BuzzinSATX

New member
Oh - evolving from single cells to multiple-cell organisms is easy. It has happened multiple times in evolutionary history, and biologists have definitely made that happen in a test tube, repeatedly. Once you have a single-celled organism, it is off to the races (give or take a billion years).
Lots of theory and speculation. A volcano spits out half the amino acids…but no life. What if all the amino acids were present…would life just spontaneously generate? I am sure scientists can put them all in a test tube and maybe hook up some jumper cables or something and pop a frog out of thin air, right?

Nope…they cannot create life from no life, either in a glass jar nor from a natural event.

And the “Big Bang”…the scientific explanation is everything came from a single great explosion billions of years ago and everything randomly formed into all the wonders in the universe, all by random energy?

And you think we Christians are crazy?

We have a book that has never been disproven. A book that has been proven as accurate both historically and scientifically.

And this is the question I always pose to evolutionists and can never get a proper answer…if we (man) evolved on this planet over millions of years, why did we evolve so poorly? We cannot see in the dark like other animals. We cannot eat most things in nature without getting sick or dying. With few geographical exceptions, we cannot live without shelter or clothing. We cannot fight most creatures without tools. Yet we somehow made it to the top of the evolution ladder?

You ignore so much! You disregard facts that are plain to see but are misinterpreted to fit a narrative.

Hey, I used to buy the whole evolution line…for years! But I’ve started doing some real looking for answers, and I now believe none of it.

Im not a scientist, but I’m not stupid nor am I stuck in dogma.

for those who’d like to hear scientists speak on creation, watch this documentary:


I’m done arguing with you, Roscoe. I have neither the time nor energy to go back and forth. The Bible has never been disproven. Atheists who set out to disprove the existence of Jesus became followers based on evidence they found.

In the end, we will all die. I believe in the book that tells me how to deal with that event and go forward. I hope you will open your mind to the things in the documentary I posted, but I suspect you will dismiss it out of hand without watching, because you and your kind are exactly what you claim Christians are…close minded to facts!
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... resulted in a new species of finch.
Yes, but still a finch and not a turtle.

But on a more scientific note, not really a new species either unless they were incapable of interbreeding with other finches. I was unable to find an answer to that.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
My final contribution to this thread (stuff to do, etc etc): if the evolutionists would present it as hypothesis I'd have no problem. Because they present it as proven fact, which it is not, they aren't conforming to the usual meaning of "scientific method", a form of self-deception, I think, and a position with which I do have a problem.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
My final contribution to this thread (stuff to do, etc etc): if the evolutionists would present it as hypothesis I'd have no problem. Because they present it as proven fact, which it is not, they aren't conforming to the usual meaning of "scientific method", a form of self-deception, I think, and a position with which I do have a problem.

If you think that scientists present ANYTHING as proven fact, then you don't understand science. EVERYTHING is subject to test and potential refutation, which is why it is not a religion.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Yes, but still a finch and not a turtle.

But on a more scientific note, not really a new species either unless they were incapable of interbreeding with other finches. I was unable to find an answer to that.
It is not whether they are incapable. It is whether they do. Wolves and coyotes can interbreed, and will in a zoo. But they don't in nature. We don't really use the 'can they interbreed' threshold to define species. It is a question of independent genetic lineages. Wolves and coyotes have had independent lineages for so long, and their behavior precludes normal interbreeding, so we consider them different species.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Lots of theory and speculation. A volcano spits out half the amino acids…but no life. What if all the amino acids were present…would life just spontaneously generate? I am sure scientists can put them all in a test tube and maybe hook up some jumper cables or something and pop a frog out of thin air, right?

Nope…they cannot create life from no life, either in a glass jar nor from a natural event.

And the “Big Bang”…the scientific explanation is everything came from a single great explosion billions of years ago and everything randomly formed into all the wonders in the universe, all by random energy?

And you think we Christians are crazy?

We have a book that has never been disproven. A book that has been proven as accurate both historically and scientifically.

And this is the question I always pose to evolutionists and can never get a proper answer…if we (man) evolved on this planet over millions of years, why did we evolve so poorly? We cannot see in the dark like other animals. We cannot eat most things in nature without getting sick or dying. With few geographical exceptions, we cannot live without shelter or clothing. We cannot fight most creatures without tools. Yet we somehow made it to the top of the evolution ladder?

You ignore so much! You disregard facts that are plain to see but are misinterpreted to fit a narrative.

Hey, I used to buy the whole evolution line…for years! But I’ve started doing some real looking for answers, and I now believe none of it.

Im not a scientist, but I’m not stupid nor am I stuck in dogma.

for those who’d like to hear scientists speak on creation, watch this documentary:


I’m done arguing with you, Roscoe. I have neither the time nor energy to go back and forth. The Bible has never been disproven. Atheists who set out to disprove the existence of Jesus became followers based on evidence they found.

In the end, we will all die. I believe in the book that tells me how to deal with that event and go forward. I hope you will open your mind to the things in the documentary I posted, but I suspect you will dismiss it out of hand without watching, because you and your kind are exactly what you claim Christians are…close minded to facts!

I am not sure you are as familiar with the Bible as you think,. There are quite a few things that are materially incorrect in the Bible, depending on whether you read the Book literally or not (7-day creation, flood of Genesis, Tower of Babel, etc.), but there are some errors in Leviticus that are pretty direct. Keep in mind that defense of the factual accuracy of the Bible (Psalm 104:5-6, specifically) is why the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo.

That so much of the Bible is open to interpretation means that it is not very useful as a document of fact. But it does have some historical data. No one doubts that there was a historical King David or Jesus. Persian emperor Cyrus the Great is mentioned several times, and we know independently that he was an actual historical figure. Those are not the things scientists challenge.

And here is the main problem that no religion can explain: if Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation myth says one thing, and the Hindu myth says another, and the Hopi says another, and the Vedic myth says another, and the Zoroastrian says another, and the Australian Aboriginal says yet another, how are we to pick among them? There are thousands of religions, and most are mutually incompatible on major factual predictions.

Let's say science is open to creation mythologies. How do they decide, objectively, which one to accept? Do they see which one is objectively closest to the known material facts of geology and biology? Or do they just accept the one that is most popular?

There is no way to do it. It just wouldn't be in any way consistent with the principles of science in which you can only accept facts that can be examined and tested in the open. All religions require major leaps of factual faith, and science just cannot do that.

One of the main strengths of science does not need to invoke a supernatural force for anything it explains.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Lots of theory and speculation. A volcano spits out half the amino acids…but no life. What if all the amino acids were present…would life just spontaneously generate? I am sure scientists can put them all in a test tube and maybe hook up some jumper cables or something and pop a frog out of thin air, right?

Nope…they cannot create life from no life, either in a glass jar nor from a natural event.

And the “Big Bang”…the scientific explanation is everything came from a single great explosion billions of years ago and everything randomly formed into all the wonders in the universe, all by random energy?

And you think we Christians are crazy?

We have a book that has never been disproven. A book that has been proven as accurate both historically and scientifically.

And this is the question I always pose to evolutionists and can never get a proper answer…if we (man) evolved on this planet over millions of years, why did we evolve so poorly? We cannot see in the dark like other animals. We cannot eat most things in nature without getting sick or dying. With few geographical exceptions, we cannot live without shelter or clothing. We cannot fight most creatures without tools. Yet we somehow made it to the top of the evolution ladder?

You ignore so much! You disregard facts that are plain to see but are misinterpreted to fit a narrative.

Hey, I used to buy the whole evolution line…for years! But I’ve started doing some real looking for answers, and I now believe none of it.

Im not a scientist, but I’m not stupid nor am I stuck in dogma.

for those who’d like to hear scientists speak on creation, watch this documentary:


I’m done arguing with you, Roscoe. I have neither the time nor energy to go back and forth. The Bible has never been disproven. Atheists who set out to disprove the existence of Jesus became followers based on evidence they found.

In the end, we will all die. I believe in the book that tells me how to deal with that event and go forward. I hope you will open your mind to the things in the documentary I posted, but I suspect you will dismiss it out of hand without watching, because you and your kind are exactly what you claim Christians are…close minded to facts!
There are lots of reasons why humans have the specific anatomical 'weaknesses' you point to. The vision of humans is ape vision. Apes are diurnal (daytime) animals, and so are we. Humans evolved in the tropics as long-distance walkers/runners, so we lost our hair, except on our heads to protect our brains. (If you really want visual evidence for human evolution from apes, compare their skeletons).

But humans are not as weak as you think. Or, at least, not unless we are sitting in front of our TVs and computers all day. Humans are the most efficient long-distance runners in the animal kingdom, and the Turahamura Indians will chase a deer literally till it dies from exhaustion. The San Bushmen do the same to antelope. Also, the human shoulder has evolved to produce an arm that can throw a baseball (or rock or speak) at 80+ MPH. That is pretty fearsome. The lions of Kenya know to stay away from the Maasai boys, who have to guard cattle with only a spear. 4-5 healthy humans with spears are among the most deadly things on Earth. And with our brains, we can make clothing, so cold is not such an issue. We were stuck in the tropics until we got smart enough to make clothing (say 500,000 years ago).

But we are most definitely not a the 'top of the evolution ladder'. There is no such ladder, there is just nature. We are one animal among millions. We have been pretty successful, but only for the last 10,000 years (for our first 6 million years, we were thin on the landscape). Some animals have been around for more than 300 million years. It is hard to imagine us surviving even .01% that amount of time from now.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Sure, after that inexplicable occurrence all it takes is random chance and a few mutations and you have moon landings, symphony orchestras, monster truck pulls.......
We can literally track the increase in and behavioral and anatomical complexity through the entire fossil record. It takes a few billions of years to get to animals, but once we have animals, they just get everywhere, and do everything. Just pick a time in Earth's past over the last 500 million years, and you will see the amazing variety of animal life. And for some lineages (social vertebrates) , the brain just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Ours is one such lineage.

So, the simple answer to your question is: yes.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
If you think that scientists present ANYTHING as proven fact, then you don't understand science. EVERYTHING is subject to test and potential refutation, which is why it is not a religion.
You fail to distinguish between science and scientists. Yes, I understand science, and I agree with the statement above about science. I don't understand "scientists" who don't follow that principle and so therefore don't practice science and the scientific method.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You fail to distinguish between science and scientists. Yes, I understand science, and I agree with the statement above about science. I don't understand "scientists" who don't follow that principle and so therefore don't practice science and the scientific method.

Scientists are human and subject to human failures. Vanity, pride, etc. are not uncommon among all humans. But because science has a built-in check for that kind of thing, it can be corrected once identified. This is what makes it unique among human knowledge systems.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...We are one animal among millions. ...
No. We are one animal species that is uniquely different from all other animal species. We are the only species with an awareness of past, present and future. To have an awareness of a future I posit that an innate sense that there exists something not seen and experienced in the now is necessary. There is no possible way such an awareness and innate sense could have evolved through natural selection. Natural selection cannot operate using something that isn't here and now.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No. We are one animal species that is uniquely different from all other animal species. We are the only species with an awareness of past, present and future. To have an awareness of a future I posit that an innate sense that there exists something not seen and experienced in the now is necessary. There is no possible way such an awareness and innate sense could have evolved through natural selection. Natural selection cannot operate using something that isn't here and now.
Well, first - what you said about our awareness being unique is not true. Several animals operate in a temporal framework and plan for the future (apes, corvids, and likely others, but not squirrels, who only cache food). Is it to a lesser degree? Yes, obviously, but that is the important point - our consciousness is different in degree, not quality, from other encephalized animals. The human brain is composed of the same neurons and glions as the brain of other animals. We just have more of them.

Also - consciousness likely wasn't directly selected for. There was selection for understanding intentionality in social animals, (which is why we see consciousness only in social animals). And there was selection for raw brain size. In combination, we, and other animals, acquired consciousness and understanding of time.

In most animals the brain is constrained from getting bigger by the metabolic demands of the brain - it is a very expensive organ, and in humans consumes more than 25% of normal metabolic output from the body. We were only able to acquire such a larger brain once we added meat-eating to our diet. But in some animals, a brain is no great advantage - what will a 'smart' rhino do better than the grazing it does now? In some animals, however, a large brain is an advantage - elephants can manipulate the world with their trunks and so benefit in a way a rhino never could. Elephants, incidentally, also have consciousness (and are highly social).

You really need to stop thinking of humans as something different than nature. It is a form of vanity. We are composed of the same stuff as all other animals, and our anatomical and behavioral patterns fall on predictions made from other animals. Our intelligence is exactly what you would predict for a primate with a 1400cc brain.

Take a look at these primate brains - they are different only in size (except the gorilla, which is a bit shorter in length but higher). Humans fall right on the prediction line, based on primates.

1631299882290.png


 

Attachments

  • 1631294901954.png
    1631294901954.png
    368.2 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Top