I Wear Pants;1387310 wrote:I get you're joking but that's not at all similar. Even without knowledge of their history we could study them scientifically. Not so with the magic sky man.

Oh we could study them, but studying similarities wouldn't necessarily prove common origin. Merely lend credibility to that as a likely answer. Technically, such a comparison could also imply that what the two have in common was the most efficient or effective construction at the time, and with a team of engineers (not far-fetched), two seperate companies came up with roughly the same constructions, such that their machines shared it, and yet they didn't necessarily develop out of a single one.

But now this is getting silly.

As for the magic man in the sky, if we could study him using the laws of nature (that is, that he would be subject to them), it would be difficult to suggest he had any more power or authority than we do, wouldn't it?

In all seriousness, yes, I was teasing. However, I suppose that if some event were to occur and the use of computers were to cease, and we were to essentially lose most of the physical evidence of them from today via everyone discarding them, it might be rather similar. History is odd that way. At some point, the majority of data that once existed is no longer available. So you can dig around and try to piece it together, logically trying to fill in the gaps (which requires a margin for error) or you can read narratives from the ancient times and try to bridge the gaps in time, language, normative social communication styles, geography, worldview, etc. Each provides advantages and disadvantages that have to be overcome in our search for the actual truth -- so we plug away, doing what we can to try to figure out just what really happened in our universe before we showed up (both we individually and we collectively).

But I think we're getting too deep into a parallel that will be breaking down pretty quickly.

to believe in evolution you need about as much faith as a person who believes in god because it really cant explain how life began

O-Trap;1387307 wrote:Eventually, that evidence might just be an ancient book written about how it happened. Who's going to believe that just based on the theory that it's possible?

Right, they are totally the same. :rolleyes:

O-Trap;1387304 wrote:Careful where you go with THAT analogy, though. The evolution of computers was by "design."

Market forces brought about the change in computer. In biology, survival brought about the changes needed for species. Given enough iterations, down the road, you'll have enough variation that they would no longer be considered the same species.

ThePatriot;1387312 wrote:Wow, I'm a non believer myself who has listened to and been part of this same discussion during a thousand drunken nights in my life and I've never seen the position argued as poorly and irresponsibly as Sleeper has done.

Heck, I think I might go to mass on Sunday now. SMH. Thanks a lot sleeper.

That's partly due to my insistence that rational arguments cannot be had when faith is the trump card. I refuse to waste time engaging in rational debate with broken minds who are more concerned with justifying their erroneous belief system than actually listening to the vast amount of evidence that exists in contrary to their established position.

Gblock;1387342 wrote:to believe in evolution you need about as much faith as a person who believes in god because it really cant explain how life began

Incorrect. There is evidence of evolution. Please go visit your nearest Museum of Natural History. Evolution is NOT abiogenesis.

sleeper;1387427 wrote:Incorrect. There is evidence of evolution. Please go visit your nearest Museum of Natural History. Evolution is NOT abiogenesis.

there is evidence of how life began? that was what i was saying. before evolution can happen life must begin somewhere

Current modelsThere is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

• The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]), ammonia (NH[SUB]3[/SUB]), water (H[SUB]2[/SUB]O), hydrogen sulfide (H[SUB]2[/SUB]S), carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO[SUB]4[/SUB][SUP]3-[/SUP]), with molecular oxygen (O[SUB]2[/SUB]) and ozone (O[SUB]3[/SUB]) either rare or absent.
• In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
• Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
• A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
• The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
  1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
  2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
  3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[SUP][38][/SUP] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

• Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
• Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
• Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2.[SUP][39]





this requires as much faith as belief in god imo[/SUP]

i say that to say why cant it be both? intelligent design making use of evolution? you cant use evolution to discount god if you cant come up with a more plausible way that life came into existence

Gblock;1387435 wrote:there is evidence of how life began? that was what i was saying. before evolution can happen life must begin somewhere

That's irrelevant to the conversation. There is very little evidence for abiogensis. There is a overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.

Your argument is akin to saying before creationism can happen when has to explain how god began. Please, before the next time you open your mouth try to remove all greed, selfishness, and ignorance.

sleeper;1387439 wrote:That's irrelevant to the conversation. There is very little evidence for abiogensis. There is a overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.

Your argument is akin to saying before creationism can happen when has to explain how god began. Please, before the next time you open your mouth try to remove all greed, selfishness, and ignorance.

so your answer is you have no answer

Gblock;1387436 wrote:i say that to say why cant it be both? intelligent design making use of evolution? you cant use evolution to discount god if you cant come up with a more plausible way that life came into existence

Why can't we just let the evidence decide and explore things we don't know instead of just making up theories with no substantiated evidence and no basis for scientific research? I mean christ, we can only be so thankful for the thousands of scientists who sacrificed their lives in search of the truth that built the foundation for every modern medical and technological advancement in history. I mean, despite the churches and believers insistence that god did everything and that those who tried to use logic and reason to draw a conclusion were heathens worthy of the guillotine. Next time a loved one has their life saved by the intervention of modern medicine and highly trained medical professionals, don't thank "god", thank science.

sleeper;1387446 wrote:Why can't we just let the evidence decide and explore things we don't know instead of just making up theories with no substantiated evidence and no basis for scientific research? I mean christ, we can only be so thankful for the thousands of scientists who sacrificed their lives in search of the truth that built the foundation for every modern medical and technological advancement in history. I mean, despite the churches and believers insistence that god did everything and that those who tried to use logic and reason to draw a conclusion were heathens worthy of the guillotine. Next time a loved one has their life saved by the intervention of modern medicine and highly trained medical professionals, don't thank "god", thank science.

i dont disagree with that..i am not a religious person at all..im not saying god did or didnt do it. my point is we dont know..and the theory of evolution has just about as much holes in it as religion does. not ending with it has no explanation for how life began

Gblock;1387443 wrote:so your answer is you have no answer

As of now there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion for creationism(read: none) or abiogensis(read: very little). So yes, the answer is WE DON'T KNOW but believers know because they read it in a book that has no hidden agenda. :rolleyes:

Gblock;1387450 wrote:i dont disagree with that..i am not a religious person at all..im not saying god did or didnt do it. my point is we dont know..and the theory of evolution has just about as much holes in it as religion does. not ending with it has no explanation for how life began

SMH. Evolution DOES NOT TRY to ascertain how life started. That isn't part of the "theory" just like every other theory on the planet doesn't have to start with "Well yeah but you need to show how gravity started before you can establish its credibility". Please, read a book on evolution and take a visit to your local museum and SEE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for evolution.

sleeper;1387467 wrote:SMH. Evolution DOES NOT TRY to ascertain how life started. That isn't part of the "theory" just like every other theory on the planet doesn't have to start with "Well yeah but you need to show how gravity started before you can establish its credibility". Please, read a book on evolution and take a visit to your local museum and SEE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for evolution.

Even so it would be resonable to assume that when matter was created the law of gravity was established at the same time which would still bear the question of where said mater came from, not whether or not gravity exists.

Gblock;1387478 wrote:Even so it would be resonable to assume that when matter was created the law of gravity was established at the same time which would still bear the question of where said mater came from, not whether or not gravity exists.

Exactly. The question of where matter has come from has not been proven, but the existence of evolution HAS been proven. This is laughable that the crux of your argument can be extinguished with little to no effort.

sleeper;1387527 wrote:Exactly. The question of where matter has come from has not been proven, but the existence of evolution HAS been proven. This is laughable that the crux of your argument can be extinguished with little to no effort.

my only point was that you cant use evolution to disprove the existence of god which it seems like you were doing, not whether there is evidence to support the theory

the fact that it cant explain the origin of life will always give those who believe in god a basis for belief and the fact that there isnt a smoking gun it needs to end the dispute.

Gblock;1387533 wrote:my only point was that you cant use evolution to disprove the existence of god which it seems like you were doing, not whether there is evidence to support the theory

the fact that it cant explain the origin of life will always give those who believe in god a basis for belief and the fact that there isnt a smoking gun it needs to end the dispute.

EVOLUTION IS NOT MEANT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
EVOLUTION IS NOT MEANT TO "DISPROVE" THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

At this point, I hope you are trolling because you seriously cannot be this dense.

sleeper;1387549 wrote:EVOLUTION IS NOT MEANT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
EVOLUTION IS NOT MEANT TO "DISPROVE" THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

At this point, I hope you are trolling because you seriously cannot be this dense.

so why are you even talking about it ....you were the one that brought it up..you are the one that talks about it all the time whenever religion comes up

Gblock;1387552 wrote:so why are you even talking about it ....you were the one that brought it up..you are the one that talks about it all the time whenever religion comes up

Mostly it has to do with believers and their arrogant "God did it!" attitude without regard to actual evidence and peer reviewed research. Evolution typically runs contrary to the belief that god created all species and put humans here when reality is that humans evolved from a common ancestor with primates millions of years ago.

Not to mention, it's absolutely hilarious reading the broken logic and pure delusion brought up by believers to justify their erroneous belief structure.

fair enough...i hate religion because it has become more of a business, 99.9 percent of religions dont even remotely resemble what was laid out in the bible...especially people like this

Well, that won't be me, since I don't deny it. As I said earlier, I believe that evolution has indeed been the cause of species diversification. My question was whether or not we've actually seen two species develop from one (or one develop into a completely new one). Granted even on a small scale, it would take an obscenely long time. Didn't know if we'd seen it get to that point. That's all.

You can look up the Kiwi bird. Because of New Zealand's geographical isolation, the only animals that could reach the island were birds. The kiwi bird didn't just pop up out of the ground overnight and start magically walking around foraging the forest floor looking for food. The kiwi bird evolved from its ancestor which could fly because more food was available near the ground than up in trees. The kiwi bird from millions of years ago would look nothing like it's current form and thus would be called a separate species altogether(in fact its no longer classified as a bird, but a mammal despite the fact it still lays eggs).

Gblock;1387342 wrote:to believe in evolution you need about as much faith as a person who believes in god because it really cant explain how life began

No. There isn't believing in evolution, there's understanding or not understanding it.

sleeper;1387612 wrote:You can look up the Kiwi bird. Because of New Zealand's geographical isolation, the only animals that could reach the island were birds. The kiwi bird didn't just pop up out of the ground overnight and start magically walking around foraging the forest floor looking for food. The kiwi bird evolved from its ancestor which could fly because more food was available near the ground than up in trees. The kiwi bird from millions of years ago would look nothing like it's current form and thus would be called a separate species altogether(in fact its no longer classified as a bird, but a mammal despite the fact it still lays eggs).

Because New Zealand has always been in the same location...

/plate tectonic'd