Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 11:42 am
It seems you are not understanding the difference between...
Claim A:
1) a claim made about an actual observable, measurable, and verifiable object/concept/being/process/place/condition.
2) Has actual properties or attributes.
3) The predictions of the theory are able to reproduce accurate, measurable and verifiable results that correlate with truth.
4) Has more evidence to support it is True, rather than False. (this doesn't mean unfalsifiable)
Claim B:
1) A claim made about an object/concept/being/process/place/condition that cannot be observed, measured or verified at all.
2) Has no attributes or properties.
3) The predictions of the theory do not reproduce accurate, measurable and verifiable results that correlate with truth.
4) Has no evidence to support it is True, but rather it shares the same properties as something that would be False. (This is unfalsifiable)
Posts: 682
Threads: 37
Joined: January 7, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
On ancient earth tens to hundreds of quintillions of amino acid molecules or even more than that interacting many times per second for a hundred million years or more and it only has to produce a self-replicating grouping once for life to start.
Where is the intelligence in that?
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm
its really a moot point. A carbon atom is just an atom. Scientists have shown that a simple carbon atom can, under the right conditions, given the right circumstances, and on its own...form into a compound that is the crux of all things that are living. If that can happen, there's good reason to believe that this compound can develop into more complex compounds (which are fortuitously made-up of the same matter), and from there-more complex compounds comprised of more intricate assemblies of the same matter...etc. With millions of years to play with, the right circumstances available, and an unthinkable amount of opportunities, its absolutely naive to suggest that such a thing isn't plausible or at the very least quite possible, and a DAMN SIGHT more possible than any unfalsifiable hypothesis. I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on God theories as the only ones with no evidence, I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair.
Posts: 91
Threads: 6
Joined: May 8, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 8:09 am)John V Wrote: Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, why call it a theory? Creationists get crap for saying evolution is only a theory, yet evolutionists use it in the same sense all the time. Go figure.
I used "theory" in the non-scientific sense. A scientific theory is essentially fact that can't be definitely verified. Scientists accept evolution as fact, but it can't be definitely verified because we don't have a time machine. It is therefore a theory.
The RNA world idea is a hypothesis; an idea that came about through observation. Laymen like myself use "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably because we don't really care to point out the difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't :/.
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 2:45 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 2:38 pm)Praetorian Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 8:09 am)John V Wrote: Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, why call it a theory? Creationists get crap for saying evolution is only a theory, yet evolutionists use it in the same sense all the time. Go figure.
I used "theory" in the non-scientific sense. A scientific theory is essentially fact that can't be definitely verified. Scientists accept evolution as fact, but it can't be definitely verified because we don't have a time machine. It is therefore a theory.
The RNA world idea is a hypothesis; an idea that came about through observation. Laymen like myself use "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably because we don't really care to point out the difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't :/.
I can have theories all day long. But unless its backed by anything solid, its just me pulling shit out of my ass and using it to explain other shit I don't understand.
Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence, that's hardly the same as just asserting that "God made man, then used one of his ribs to make woman. Done and done!"...That's an example of just pulling shit out of one's ass.
Posts: 91
Threads: 6
Joined: May 8, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Are you really comparing the RNA world hypothesis to creation in Genesis? We're on the same side here.
Evolution assumes self-replicating cells already exist. We still have to explain how the first one came to be. You'd do yourself some good by learning about the ideas currently proposed to bridge that gap.
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 4:28 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Praetorian Wrote: Are you really comparing the RNA world hypothesis to creation in Genesis? We're on the same side here.
Evolution assumes self-replicating cells already exist. We still have to explain how the first one came to be. You'd do yourself some good by learning about the ideas currently proposed to bridge that gap.
I don't want to, but if that's what ole boy wants to do, then I continue to get suckered in! lol, I'm bored and watching the clock at work. Ha ha ha, I don't know if your whole statement was directed at me, but i'm fascinated by the ideas proposed that bridge that gap! If you read my earlier posts, I mentioned that too. I've actually got a biology book in my lap right now. I've forgotten how amazing all this stuff is. MUST BE MAGIC!
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair. I doubt you'll be praying to the Tooth Fairy on your deathbed.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair. I doubt you'll be praying to the Tooth Fairy on your deathbed.
You need to remember that we deem your version of whatever god it is you submit yourself to on equal footing to the tooth fairy or unicorns.
If you were dying suddenly in, say, the Punjab, I doubt you'd be praying to your current god on your deathbed as well.
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Conflicting statements in the bible
May 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm
(May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (May 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair. I doubt you'll be praying to the Tooth Fairy on your deathbed.
Don't be so sure...desperate times call for desperate measures!!  But, like George Carlin said "If I pray to the sun, or I pray to God, I get about the same results...50/50."
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
