No scientific proof of god

[TaxAHCruel]

a) I am an ignorant in science and trying to learn

 

And there is only so much someone like me can do for you on a forum like this. Have you ever considered going back and completing high school or taking courses or buying the huge books that some of us have read to get to the level we are at?

 

b) My English is terrible

 

It was not a linguistic error you made it was a category error. However perhaps it is time to consider discussing these matters with someone in your own mother tongue. They are difficult enough concepts to understand at the best of times - let alone while doing it through a 2nd or third language.

 

Abiogenesis is the science of how life got started at all. This is where hypotheses like self replicating proteins building up towards RNA and then DNA come from.

 

Evolution is the science of what happened once life got started and replication has already occurred/begun.

 

In a discussion about ballistics one would not waste much time discussing the chemistry behind why gunpowder explodes. Similarly in Evolution one does not need to waste time discussing how life got started at all.

 

They are two entirely different topics.

[therhythm]

And there is only so much someone like me can do for you on a forum like this. Have you ever considered going back and completing high school or taking courses or buying the huge books that some of us have read to get to the level we are at?

 

 

 

It was not a linguistic error you made it was a category error. However perhaps it is time to consider discussing these matters with someone in your own mother tongue. They are difficult enough concepts to understand at the best of times - let alone while doing it through a 2nd or third language.

 

Abiogenesis is the science of how life got started at all. This is where hypotheses like self replicating proteins building up towards RNA and then DNA come from.

 

Evolution is the science of what happened once life got started and replication has already occurred/begun.

 

In a discussion about ballistics one would not waste much time discussing the chemistry behind why gunpowder explodes. Similarly in Evolution one does not need to waste time discussing how life got started at all.

 

They are two entirely different topics.

 

More or less what you say is that you have a theory abiogenesis that changes name when life starts to Evolution... at the end of the day life either was created or evolved from something ... those two theories are the only possibilities... you can call it abiogenensis or evolution... if you bring evolution to its origins it becomes abiogenesis..

[TaxAHCruel]

what you say is that you have a theory abiogenesis that changes name when life starts to Evolution

 

That is - as I said - like saying "You have chemistry but you just change its name when you are talking about ballistics".

 

They are two completely different areas of science. It is not simply about changing labels.

 

if you bring evolution to its origins it becomes abiogenesis..

 

If you bring ballistics - or cake baking - "to its origins" it just becomes chemistry. If you bring chemistry "to its origins" it just becomes physics.

 

You are essentially saying nothing at all in other words.

[therhythm]

That is - as I said - like saying "You have chemistry but you just change its name when you are talking about ballistics".

 

They are two completely different areas of science. It is not simply about changing labels.

 

 

 

If you bring ballistics - or cake baking - "to its origins" it just becomes chemistry. If you bring chemistry "to its origins" it just becomes physics.

 

You are essentially saying nothing at all in other words.

 

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Futuyma, an evolutionist, states:Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence"

 

I still fail to see how Abiogenesis is not part of the marked bold in the above statement...

[TaxAHCruel]

I still fail to see how Abiogenesis is not part of the marked bold in the above statement...

 

You just quoted a Creationist - someone who makes a living out of misrepresenting Evolution. If that is where you are going for your knowledge of evolution then you are going to continue to "fail to see" a lot of things.

 

Again: If you reduce nearly any science far enough you will end up somewhere else. Abiogenesis and Evolution however are two entirely different areas of science.

 

The first is how you get a self replicating agent. The second is what happens once you have one.

 

The skill of digging up metal and the skill of building cars are two entirely different things. Clearly you can not do the second without doing the first - but that does not make them the same thing.

[pie2]

You just quoted a Creationist - someone who makes a living out of misrepresenting Evolution. If that is where you are going for your knowledge of evolution then you are going to continue to "fail to see" a lot of things.

 

Again: If you reduce nearly any science far enough you will end up somewhere else. Abiogenesis and Evolution however are two entirely different areas of science.

 

The first is how you get a self replicating agent. The second is what happens once you have one.

 

The skill of digging up metal and the skill of building cars are two entirely different things. Clearly you can not do the second without doing the first - but that does not make them the same thing.

 

So, what is your definition of Evolution?

[TaxAHCruel]

So, what is your definition of Evolution?

 

That is like asking me "What is your definition of Chemistry" or "What is your definition of plumbing". They are large areas of discourse and discussion and as such a general one liner answer is not really possible.

 

The dictionary definition for example just speaks of the gradual development of something from a simple form into a more complex one. In many ways that fits Biological Evolution - but not perfectly as often in Biological Evolution movements towards LESS complexity can be observed.

 

In biological terms if I was forced to give a short answer - but it is still incomplete - "Evolution" refers to the constant change of biological life over time in response to its Environment(s).

[pie2]

In biological terms if I was forced to give a short answer - but it is still incomplete - "Evolution" refers to the constant change of biological life over time in response to its Environment(s).

 

Part of the theory of evolution seems to include the random genetic mutations that lead to biological changes in a species.

 

Part of the theory of abiogenesis seems to include the random chemical reaction that led to the creation of life.

 

The point being that the two theories are similar and related in that they are constructed on the basis that a random event is the foundation for our existence. This is in contrast to the theory of a Creator. We're talking about random things vs. created things. Not chemical agents vs. biological agents.

 

Do you disagree?

 

Tax, you seem to be very interested in the sciences and have strict criteria about the type of scientific data you will consider and discuss. That's good. But, I don't think you're going to find it on the Loveshack Spirituality and Religious Forum. Most people here are just laypeople having everyday discussions about their thoughts on life, God etc.

[TaxAHCruel]

The point being that the two theories are similar and related in that they are constructed on the basis that a random event is the foundation for our existence.

 

Not a useful method of distinction at all. If you look at any two subjects in science and unpack them deeply enough you will find one or two common points between them. That does not make them the same or even similar.

 

Obtaining power from nuclear fusion and creating alloys to build cars both involve work with atoms. Does that make them similar or the same? Not at all. It just means I unpacked them deeply enough to find one commonality.

 

Evolution and abiogenesis are two entirely different fields of research. Finding one single point you think is similar between them does not make them similar.

 

Most people here are just laypeople having everyday discussions about their thoughts on life, God etc.

 

Good. That means my voice brings something different to the forum that otherwise would not be there. This is a good thing. Diversity is a spice every forum benefits from.

[pie2]

Good. That means my voice brings something different to the forum that otherwise would not be there. This is a good thing. Diversity is a spice every forum benefits from.

 

So you're not common, everyday folk? Where's the proof?! You're right about one thing though...you definitely bring a lot of spice.

 

Nonetheless, I still don't agree with the rest of your argument.

[TaxAHCruel]

So you're not common, everyday folk? Where's the proof?!

 

It was your claim not mine - I was just extrapolating from your point - so substantiating it is your job not mine

 

I still don't agree with the rest of your argument.

 

Clearly. It is "why" that is unclear.

[pie2]

It was your claim not mine - I was just extrapolating from your point - so substantiating it is your job not mine

 

My, you're a contrary one! (I substantiate that with this thread)

 

OK, you're claiming that you're not a layperson . What is your profession/area of expertise?

[TaxAHCruel]

My, you're a contrary one! (I substantiate that with this thread)

 

I think we can mature past the personal attacks and comments. All adults here, right?

 

OK, you're claiming that you're not a layperson . What is your profession/area of expertise?

 

Varied. I have official qualifications in a few areas, including IT, Psychology, Theology and Biology. I have also studied unofficially many others.

 

Not sure what relevance this has though? I prefer to evaluate what people say - not who is saying it. If something is true or useful then it is true or useful regardless of whether it is said by a multi-decorated professor - a Burger King burger fliper - or a homeless guy selling pencils from a cup on the corner of 5th and main.

Edited July 5, 2013 by TaxAHCruel

[pie2]

I think we can mature past the personal attacks and comments. All adults here, right?

 

Umm...you really don't know that I'm just joking with you?

 

Sigh. Sometimes I don't think I'm really made for this forum stuff, lol. It never comes out right.

 

Varied. I have official qualifications in a few areas, including IT, Psychology, Theology and Biology. I have also studied unofficially many others. Not sure what relevance this has though?

 

We were just discussing if you're common, everyday folk or not. Nothing more .

 

In terms of discussing anything deeper, credentials are NOT required. I certainly don't have anything of note, lol . As long as we're both not saying we've cured cancer or unlocked some deep philosophical dilemma, I think we're good.

[TaxAHCruel]

Umm...you really don't know that I'm just joking with you?

 

Indeed. It is a lamentable loss in my opinion that actually being funny is no longer apparently a requirement of jokes. Such is progress I guess.

 

Then again maybe I just miss a lot of humor against the background of the general tone of the forum thread it is posted on. So the failing is as likely mine as yours. It does remind me somewhat of that scene in "Men In Black 1" where the agents call to the door and the woman having asked if this was all a joke got the dead pan response from Tommy Lee Jones "No M'am - we at the FBI do not have a sense of humor that we have been made aware of."

 

We were just discussing if you're common, everyday folk or not. Nothing more

 

That would depend on ones own definition of common and every day. The number of people with the qualifications I have - or the areas of personal interest I have - are far from uncommon. There is nothing particularly special about me that I can think of. I am just another voice in the crowd.

 

But you yourself said many people here are "lay" on the subjects I am discussing. I am not. So IF that means I bring something to the forum that would not be here otherwise then I feel this is a good thing.

[pie2]

Indeed. It is a lamentable loss in my opinion that actually being funny is no longer apparently a requirement of jokes. Such is progress I guess.

 

Lol...you're right Tax! Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (there, I did it again ...I just can't stop myself).

[TaxAHCruel]

I just can't stop myself.

 

I wish you luck in future attempts. For all our sakes :-)

[pie2]

I wish you luck in future attempts. For all our sakes :-)

 

What happened to being mature adults?

[TaxAHCruel]

What happened to being mature adults?

 

I felt dipping my toe in the waters you were happily swimming in might serve some utility. Or, in the vernacular, I am giving as good as I get. :-)

[Rooster_DAR]

Pride also can hinder science. But you cant dispute that science accomplished a lot whereas faith has not. I have not seen any statistical evidence of a god, but there is evidence of gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, evolution, ect. With god, there is not proof whatsoever. The bible could have been used to scam people. How many institutions of religion are corrupt? I think that God was invented to scam people or because people want to believe that there is an afterlife, but cant handle the realities of a permanent death.

 

 

Sums it up in a nutshell, I agree.