Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

[VaughanJB]

Yes, Darwin was a great scientist, but his is not the 'final word'. Science prides itself on NEVER calling anything the final word.

There are some people who struggle with the idea that we don't have a trite solution for every problem. Science is a process that will never end. We simply have to accept that, at least for now, there are things we don't know, and may not even be close to knowing. All we can do is form an opinion based on what we do know, and accept we could be totally wrong.

Darwin was a brilliant man because he made a giant leap in his field, and it has been established as accurate since, at least so far. Still, there is so much we need to learn. He wasn't always correct though. For example, he didn't know anything about DNA. He knew traits were passed down, but not how. His guess, "Pangenesis", has been proven incorrect. Still, that doesn't taint his great work.

 

[StarSong]

Yes, Darwin was a great scientist, but his is not the 'final word'. Science prides itself on NEVER calling anything the final word.

Exactly so, and it was my point, as well. Scientific breakthroughs are generally considered the first word in a field, not the last - even by the ground-breaking scientists themselves.

Beware cherry picked videos which are posted without any discernment. It's just an explosion of bias, without examination. I suggest you do as I do - if a post in this thread includes a video, ignore it. It would be simple to post a link countering the arguments, but then we'd have a thread of hundreds of video links and no discussion. Frankly, I'm interested in what members here think, I'm not interested in the contents of whatever echo chamber they choose to reside in.

Honestly, I consider those posts as spam.

I don't generally watch videos posted on this site, including those linked in that post. I was responding to Radrock's comment which presumably summed up the video's intent.

 

[StarSong]

To answer the original question, yes, I do believe my ancestors evolved from within earth's briny realm.

I'm not sure what or who, if anything or anyone, directed it, but Grandpa Don's post perfectly explains my position on the matter:

Just to make a point. You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. It's generally fundamentalists who deny it.
The Bible could be accepted as allegory, and many Christians do. Maybe evolution is how God works.

 

[gruntlabor]

There are some people who struggle with the idea that we don't have a trite solution for every problem. Science is a process that will never end. We simply have to accept that, at least for now, there are things we don't know, and may not even be close to knowing. All we can do is form an opinion based on what we do know, and accept we could be totally wrong.

Trite? I'm afraid I can never see past your personal remarks and negatively charged words.

 

[Radrook]

Exactly so, and it was my point, as well. Scientific breakthroughs are generally considered the first word in a field, not the last - even by the ground-breaking scientists themselves.

I don't generally watch videos posted on this site, including those linked in that post. I was responding to Radrock's comment which presumably summed up the video's intent.

Name is Radrook not Radrock.

Please note that the videos' intentions are definitely not to malign Darwin's personality and neither is mine.

As to "scientific" breakthroughs. Well, the scientists featured in videos are genuine scientists who are are not against science nor against legitimate scientific breakthroughs, as you choose to call them, nor against the scientific method itself as you are implying, merely because they disagree with your pet idea.

Quite to the contrary, these are legitimate scientists who are discovering serious scientific flaws with the evolutionary abiogenesis claims, and who rightfully consider it their professional duty to inform the public that such claims don't deserve the unconditional confidence being placed on them. In short, they are actually defending the scientific method by exposing those who are violating it via their glib propagation of totally unwarranted conclusions.

About Darwin, if indeed you deigned to take the time to read the Biographical data in the article I provided a link to, you will notice that Darwin failed in his attempt to become physician, forcing his father to relocate him to major in theology instead.

From there, he emerged burdened by conclusions completely out of kilter with basic biblical themes. These erroneous notions based on his obvious inability to grasp basic theological concepts, led him to question the legitimacy of Christianity and ultimately to question the existence of a benign creator.

 

[Radrook]

To answer the original question, yes, I do believe my ancestors evolved from within earth's briny realm.

I'm not sure what or who, if anything or anyone, directed it, but Grandpa Don's post perfectly explains my position on the matter:

That places the legitimacy of the claim to be Christian under very serious doubt since it involves calling Jesus a deluded liar.

BTW There were Spaniards who fed Native American babies to their war dogs and who claimed to be Christians. In short, anybody can make that claim.

 

[StarSong]

@Radrook, I apologize for misspelling your name. As for the video, I'm not a video watcher in general, it has nothing to do with your specific posts.

About Darwin, if indeed you deigned to take the time to read the Biographical data in the article I provided a link to, you will notice that Darwin failed in his attempt to become physician, forcing his father to relocate him to major in theology instead.

I was watching a toddler over the last two days, so my computer time was short and the Wikipedia link was to extraordinarily lengthy post, so I didn't "deign" to take the time to read it.

That places the legitimacy of the claim to be Christian under very serious doubt.

I didn't claim to be Christian, merely said I agree with GD's post that both positions could be true at the same time.

I have no particular position on evolutionary abiogenesis. Might be the source of life on this planet, might not.

It's all theoretical anyway, since none of us was there when the whole thing started.

 

[Radrook]

@Radrook, I apologize for misspelling your name. As for the video, I'm not a video watcher in general, it has nothing to do with your specific posts.

I was watching a toddler over the last two days, so my computer time was short and the Wikipedia link was to extraordinarily lengthy post, so I didn't "deign" to take the time to read it.

I didn't claim to be Christian, merely said I agree with GD's post that both positions could be true at the same time.

I have no particular position on evolutionary abiogenesis. Might be the source of life on this planet, might not.

It's all theoretical anyway, since none of us was there when the whole thing started.

The premise is flawed. We don't need to be present when a code is coded in order to know that there was a mind involved. Neither do the SETI personnel need to be present at the site where the signal originates in order to know that it proceeds from an intelligent source. The video below supports what I just said in detail.

BTW The use of expert testimony to support a point of view, is an acceptable debating method taught in college. Tagging the presentation of expert opinion as irrelevant to any debate, reveals a lamentable ignorance of what debating is all about..

 

[VaughanJB]

The premise is flawed. We don't need to be present when a code is coded in order to know that there was a mind involved.

So where is your evidence that a mind was involved? You've mentioned this point over and over again, but you've never been able to present an argument that isn't based on assumption and incredulity. I agree we don't need to be present to know when/how something happened (although in science, any evidence presented should be replicable), but at the same time, some evidence is required, no? Otherwise, it's just guessing.

 

[VaughanJB]

Trite? I'm afraid I can never see past your personal remarks and negatively charged words.

That's fine. Right back at you. However, I'm surprised if you think all, or most, of my posts on the site are "negatively charged". A disagreement is simply that, a disagreement. Some people might see a disagreement as "negatively charged", I suppose. I'm also not aware of any "personal comments". I refer to specific posts, but that's what everyone does when quoting.

Let's be honest here, this isn't the only thread where you've posted a negative response to something I've written. I've gotten used to it. Apparently you don't like me very much, and that's par for the course on forums, some people get along, some don't. It's all fair game. In the end the only thing that matters is that threads stay on topic, and don't turn into flame wars. I don't think one has.

Trite is just a word meaning "(of a remark or idea) lacking originality or freshness; dull on account of overuse."

 

[VaughanJB]

Yah! Found it.

You know, my experience on the net is that there are two topics that hurt discussion forums: Politics, and religion. While it's possible to discuss these topics, people tend to be so entrenched in their belief that it always goes south eventually.

Still, I posted this in a similar thread, and I'll cut and paste it here. I am earnest in my comment, so I offer it here for all.

IF SOMEONE, ANYONE, READING THIS THREAD DESIRES ME TO STOP QUESTIONING, THEN I ASK THAT THEY PM ME ASKING ME TO STOP. JUST THAT, SEND A MESSAGE SAYING, "IT BOTHERS ME, PLEASE STOP". IN RETURN, I WILL DO SO AND LEAVE THE THREAD. I WILL DO SO WITHOUT NAMING WHO SENT THE MESSAGE AND WITHOUT REPLYING.

Simples.

 

[gruntlabor]

That's fine. Right back at you. However, I'm surprised if you think all, or most, of my posts on the site are "negatively charged". A disagreement is simply that, a disagreement. Some people might see a disagreement as "negatively charged", I suppose. I'm also not aware of any "personal comments". I refer to specific posts, but that's what everyone does when quoting.

Let's be honest here, this isn't the only thread where you've posted a negative response to something I've written. I've gotten used to it. Apparently you don't like me very much, and that's par for the course on forums, some people get along, some don't. It's all fair game. In the end the only thing that matters is that threads stay on topic, and don't turn into flame wars. I don't think one has.

Trite is just a word meaning "(of a remark or idea) lacking originality or freshness; dull on account of overuse."

You're wrong about that, Vaughan, I do like you. You've written great posts in the past. Negative and positive responses are expected, they reflect your opinion, they're what forums are about.
I refer to personal remarks, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and polemics preferred over points of contention.

 

[VaughanJB]

You're wrong about that, Vaughan, I do like you. You've written great posts in the past. Negative and positive responses are expected, they reflect your opinion, they're what forums are about.
I refer to personal remarks, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and polemics preferred over points of contention.

I don't know who judges what is, and what is not, polemic. What we have here is one person who won't respond to questions. All one can do, is restate them. The purpose of a thread is to exchange opinion, and to explain ones reasoning. Not to get agreement, there is always going to be a gap. But I'll call it for what it is. I ask the same question not because I disagree with a response, but because a response has not been forthcoming. I was curious, and remain so.

Still, I have opened the door. Anyone, those I agree with or not, can call a halt any time with a simple PM. Not encourage. No accusation. I am easy to remove from a thread such as this. Without that, I continue to hold people to the same standard I apply to myself.

 

[gruntlabor]

I don't know who judges what is, and what is not, polemic. What we have here is one person who won't respond to questions. All one can do, is restate them. The purpose of a thread is to exchange opinion, and to explain ones reasoning. Not to get agreement, there is always going to be a gap. But I'll call it for what it is. I ask the same question not because I disagree with a response, but because a response has not been forthcoming. I was curious, and remain so.

Still, I have opened the door. Anyone, those I agree with or not, can call a halt any time with a simple PM. Not encourage. No accusation. I am easy to remove from a thread such as this. Without that, I continue to hold people to the same standard I apply to myself.

That's a '10-4 big buddy me-too'. Just let me know, and I'll disappear like a soft chocolate-chip cookie.

 

[Radrook]

The reason for extremely irrational aversions to the information posted on the videos is a frustrating inability to offer a logical rebuttal.
It is the same inability displayed in reference to the two main issues I keep pointing out.

1. Where specifically did the information coded via DNA originate? Reaction? Silence.
2. Why is there an inconsistency of policy in reference to the DNA code? Reaction? Silence.

BTW

Resorting to personal insults, or angrily constantly griping about the posting of very informative videos which very effectively debunk both evolution and abiogenesis, is totally irrelevant to these two crucial issues I just mentioned. Solution? Very simple: Stop responding to the issues by using selective blindness, or via a cunning evasive silence, and a productive discussion that you keep claiming to want will occur.

 

[Radrook]

So where is your evidence that a mind was involved? You've mentioned this point over and over again, but you've never been able to present an argument that isn't based on assumption and incredulity. I agree we don't need to be present to know when/how something happened (although in science, any evidence presented should be replicable), but at the same time, some evidence is required, no? Otherwise, it's just guessing.

So you claim inability to detect a mind in coded information?

The problem is that you are practicing an evasive tactic referred to as selective blindness. Nothing succeeds against selective blindness. In fact, it is called invincible ignorance.

The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

Yah! Found it.

You know, my experience on the net is that there are two topics that hurt discussion forums: Politics, and religion. While it's possible to discuss these topics, people tend to be so entrenched in their belief that it always goes south eventually.

Still, I posted this in a similar thread, and I'll cut and paste it here. I am earnest in my comment, so I offer it here for all.

IF SOMEONE, ANYONE, READING THIS THREAD DESIRES ME TO STOP QUESTIONING, THEN I ASK THAT THEY PM ME ASKING ME TO STOP. JUST THAT, SEND A MESSAGE SAYING, "IT BOTHERS ME, PLEASE STOP". IN RETURN, I WILL DO SO AND LEAVE THE THREAD. I WILL DO SO WITHOUT NAMING WHO SENT THE MESSAGE AND WITHOUT REPLYING.

Simples.

This thread is neither about politics nor religion. The ones who insist on bringing in religion into the discussion are atheists and agnostics who assume that I am seeking a religious discussion. Since they constantly raise religious issues, I am forced to respond from a relevant religious perspective. Otherwise I would not mention it at all.

 

[gruntlabor]

The reason for extremely irrational aversions to the information posted on the videos is their glaring inability to offer a rebuttal.
The same inability that they display in reference to the two main issues I keep pointing out.

1. Where specifically did the information coded via DNA originate ? Response? Silence.
2. Why is there an inconsistency of policy in reference to the DNA code? Response? Silence.

Resorting to personal insults, or angrily constantly griping about the posting of videos which very effectively debunk both evolution and abiogenesis, is totally irrelevant to these two crucial issues I just mentioned.

1. It may have originated with life --biology. Maybe that's what we need to study. Also to study the earth's balance between the cycles of the growth of life and the entropy of the chemical world.

2. Maybe because science is biased against organized religion which, held them back for so long. They may not be so biased against the idea of a creator. Maybe that could be a starting place for them to become more accepting, more involved.

There are only three attitudes. Atheist. Agnostic. Theist.

 

[Radrook]

1. It may have originated with life --biology. Maybe that's what we need to study. Also to study the earth's balance between the cycles of the growth of life and the entropy of the chemical world.

2. Maybe because science is biased against organized religion which, held them back for so long. They may not be so biased against the idea of a creator. Maybe that could be a starting place for them to become more accepting, more involved.

There are only three attitudes. Atheist. Agnostic. Theist.

1. Well, that pre supposes that abiogenesis occurred or is capable of occurring. Unfortunately, it has never been observed to happen neither in nature nor can it be forced to happen even under controlled laboratory conditions. So it is merely an unsubstantiated assumption, and definitely not a proven fact. In contrast, what is a well-established proven, fact is that life arises only from previous life, a compelling fact which totally contradicts the abiogenesis claim.

2. Religion held science back? Well, please note that all scientists prior to the atheistic evolution idea, such as Isaac Newton, were theists who provided the foundations of science that made this modern world possible.

BTW

There has been a complaint expressed here about my presentation of videos featuring scientists presenting expert testimony. This seems to indicate a total unfamiliarity with basic debating techniques. After all, the presentation of supporting evidence via the provision of expert testimony has been an acceptable method in debates going back to the ancient Greeks. Furthermore, today, it is taught in college English composition courses. Why? Well, very simple. Because expert opinion adds persuasive force. Especially if the debater is not an expert on the subject being debated. So someone complaining about this established debating method, is evidently totally unfamiliar with what the art of debating really entails.

 

[gruntlabor]

1. Well, that pre supposes that abiogenesis occurred or is capable of occurring. Unfortunately, it has never been observed to happen neither in nature nor can it be forced to happen even under controlled laboratory conditions. So it is merely an unsubstantiated assumption, and definitely not a proven fact. In contrast, what is a well-established proven, fact is that life arises only from previous life, a compelling fact which totally contradicts the abiogenesis claim.

2. Religion held science back? Well, please note that all scientists prior to the atheistic evolution idea, such as Isaac Newton, were theists who provided the foundations of science that made this modern world possible.

BTW

There has been a complaint expressed here about my presentation of videos featuring scientists presenting expert testimony. This seems to indicate a total unfamiliarity with basic debating techniques. After all, the presentation of supporting evidence via the provision of expert testimony has been an acceptable method in debates going back to the ancient Greeks. Furthermore, today, it is taught in college English composition courses. Why? Well, very simple. Because expert opinion adds persuasive force. Especially if the debater is not an expert on the subject being debated. So someone complaining about this established debating method, is evidently totally unfamiliar with what the art of debating really entails.

But there are so many difficulties.
1. Abiogenesis is the theory that life on Earth originated from non-living matter through natural processes. a) Define 'non-living'. b) Define 'inert'. c) What effect, if any, does time, pressure, water, electricity, light, warmth, fire, and their magical manifestations have on the assorted elements? We do not know.
The fact that life arises only from previous life as far as we know does not answer the burning question that we are asking, namely: Where did the first, the original life come from? And the answer is that we don't know yet, and neither does science.

2. Yes, religion held science back. From long before Christ through the middle ages and beyond, independent thinkers feared for their lives. You will recall that Socrates was put to sleep. Today the left and the right threaten each other regularly.

 

[January]

The ones who insist on bringing in religion into the discussion are atheists and agnostics who assume that I am seeking a religious discussion. Since they constantly raise religious issues, I am forced to respond from a relevant religious perspective. Otherwise I would not mention it at all.

 

[January]

That places the legitimacy of the claim to be Christian under very serious doubt since it involves calling Jesus a deluded liar.

I disagree.

The bible creation story is not the core of Jesus message at all, obviously there are many different interpretations of bible passages and seems very arrogant of anyone to decide only those who interpret non core passages the same as oneself are right to claim themselves as Christian.

 

[Radrook]

1. Well, that pre supposes that abiogenesis occurred or is capable of occurring. Unfortunately, it has never been observed to happen neither in nature nor can it be forced to happen even under controlled laboratory conditions. So it is merely an unsubstantiated assumption, and definitely not a proven fact. In contrast, what is a well-established proven, fact is that life arises only from previous life, a compelling fact which totally contradicts the abiogenesis claim.

2. Religion held science back? Well, please note that all scientists prior to the atheistic evolution idea, such as Isaac Newton, were theists who provided the foundations of science that made this modern world possible.

BTW

There has been a complaint expressed here about my presentation of videos featuring scientists presenting expert testimony. This seems to indicate a total unfamiliarity with basic debating techniques. After all, the presentation of supporting evidence via the provision of expert testimony has been an acceptable method in debates going back to the ancient Greeks. Furthermore, today, it is taught in college English composition courses. Why? Well, very simple. Because expert opinion adds persuasive force. Especially if the debater is not an expert on the subject being debated. So someone complaining about this established debating method, is evidently totally unfamiliar with what the art of debating really entails.

But there are so many difficulties.
1. Abiogenesis is the theory that life on Earth originated from non-living matter through natural processes. a) Define 'non-living'. b) Define 'inert'. c) What effect, if any, does time, pressure, water, electricity, light, warmth, fire, and their magical manifestations have on the assorted elements? We do not know.
The fact that life arises only from previous life as far as we know does not answer the burning question that we are asking, namely: Where did the first, the original life come from? And the answer is that we don't know yet, and neither does science.

2. Yes, religion held science back. From long before Christ through the middle ages and beyond, independent thinkers feared for their lives. You will recall that Socrates was put to sleep. Today the left and the right threaten each other regularly.

Yes, I am fully aware and perfectly understand what the hypothetical phenomenon called abiogenesis is supposed to entail. However, contrary to what atheist evolutionists are claiming, there are insurmountable obstacles which powerfully mitigate against such an event happening, insurmountable obstacles which atheist scientists are choosing to conveniently ignore. Such as the detrimental effect that vast amounts of time have on the probability of life emerging due to the many disruptive forces at work in nature which tend increase disorganization rather than enhancing it. So appealing to vast stretches of time only adds to the unlikelihood of life emerging rather than increasing it its likelihood. Yet atheist scientists dishonestly ignore these clear mathematical indications.

Yes, I am aware of how Galileo was opposed by the Catholic Church. However, we must be careful not reach a hasty conclusion and make a false generalization based on scanty or unrepresentative evidence.

About religion always contradicting the scientific approach? Well, please consider this in reference to Islam :

Also:

When Aristotle was reintroduced to Europe in the 12th century, his scientific work had a great influence on medieval scholars, who were invariably thinkers within a church, synagogue or mosque. A key example is the 13th-century Oxford theologian and later Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste, who was also a pioneering early scientist. He presented a vision for how we might obtain new knowledge of the universe, the dawning of the first notions of experiment, and even a “big bang” theory of the cosmos and a concept of multiple universes.

When 16th-century philosopher Francis Bacon argued for a new experimental approach to science, he drew explicitly on such theological motivations. As the historian of science Peter Harrison argues, the scientific pioneers who followed Bacon, such as Newton and chemist Robert Boyle, saw their task as working with God’s gifts of senses and minds to recover a lost knowledge of nature.
Religion isn’t the enemy of science: it’s been inspiring scientists for centuries

Religion Opposes Science Accusation | Varietygalore​

 

[Radrook]

There are some people who struggle with the idea that we don't have a trite solution for every problem. Science is a process that will never end. We simply have to accept that, at least for now, there are things we don't know, and may not even be close to knowing. All we can do is form an opinion based on what we do know, and accept we could be totally wrong.

Darwin was a brilliant man because he made a giant leap in his field, and it has been established as accurate since, at least so far. Still, there is so much we need to learn. He wasn't always correct though. For example, he didn't know anything about DNA. He knew traits were passed down, but not how. His guess, "Pangenesis", has been proven incorrect. Still, that doesn't taint his great work.

Trite? There nothing trite in reaching a logical conclusion based on observation. Science? Calling erroneous conclusions based on wishful thinking science doesn't' magically transform it into science.

BTW Weren't you the one who recently demanded that I discontinue this thread for my own good?

 

[Buckeye]

lol - 4 weeks and >300 posts and most of the discussions can be summarized as "is too, is not, is too, is not". Biblical quotes and videos prove nothing, and if that's the best you have, you have nothing. And if all you have for evolution is that it all started out of nothing, but then something, you have nothing. I am reminded of the tales of the dark ages and grand arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

There have been several interesting posts that accept that all origin of life discussions are unknowable. And thank you @gruntlabor for being the only poster who got the remora/young lady one liner.

Moving on.