RobertE Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:It is definitely not a component in the sense (universal common descent) you're implying. An organism could be found tomorrow completely unrelated to other life on earth, and it wouldn't affect the theory of evolution in the slightest. It would just mean life began more than once. It would mean there are two trees of life. Universal common descent is merely a probabilistic conclusion supported by the fact that we've yet to find life that is not genetically related to all other life.

It would be a wonderful find, even though it would almost certainly be unicellular, that would shed much light on the science of evolution and the origin of life.

It is a weird thought to be honest Mister don't you think? Should scientists be able to recreate the big bang and the primordial soup with the right conditions, they could create life, or am I on the wrong train of thought here?

It may be impossible to create life in the lab just by mimicking the initial conditions. There would have been millions of separate opportunities for it to happen and it took millions of years. Even if it was nearly inevitable (had to happen eventually given enough time), we can't provide that many opportunities and that much time in a lab.

As an analogy, there are over six billion possible bridge hands. We know for a fact that all of them will turn up eventually, but if we wanted a lab to simulate that happening, they would have to do it digitally rather than have a team of scientists shuffling actual cards for years.

(August 22, 2016 at 11:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

I thought what he meant was fairly clear from the context.

Now if one is making that argument that in science; evolution is only a theory (in regards to scientific classification), and therefore without evidence. This would be equivocation. However on the other end, when someone claims that evolution is a fact (or classified as a scientific theory), I normally ask them to define what they mean by evolution. One can equally equivocate everything under the umbrella of term "evolution" to deceptively equate fact under one meaning, with another meaning.

One might also take issue with equating the word's theory with fact, if that is your intention.

(August 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RobertE Wrote:It is a weird thought to be honest Mister don't you think? Should scientists be able to recreate the big bang and the primordial soup with the right conditions, they could create life, or am I on the wrong train of thought here?

It may be impossible to create life in the lab just by mimicking the initial conditions. There would have been millions of separate opportunities for it to happen and it took millions of years. Even if it was nearly inevitable (had to happen eventually given enough time), we can't provide that many opportunities and that much time in a lab.

As an analogy, there are over six billion possible bridge hands. We know for a fact that all of them will turn up eventually, but if we wanted a lab to simulate that happening, they would have to do it digitally rather than have a team of scientists shuffling actual cards for years.

Oh, I don't actually doubt you there for one moment, but should they be able to recreate the exact conditions, I am sure they will come up with something that is unicellular with basic functions. After that, it would simply be a question of time. Many experimental scientists over the centuries have been able to recreate a natural phenomenon, and whoever can create the ideal conditions, then he/she would be famous. Should they create somethingg that is unicellular with the most basic of functions as you stated, then all they have to do is observe all changes. The changes won't be great for sure, but whatever minute change in the internal structure is going to be, would be an improvement of the unicellular life form with basic functions. All scientists needs is that for that one unicellular organism to change once, and religion will be dead in the water, if it isn't already.

LOL! Oh, now all of a sudden RR is the expert on equivocation. FFS...this should be good. *gets popcorn*

(August 20, 2016 at 10:57 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 20, 2016 at 8:34 am)SteveII Wrote: Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

-I'm- intentionally mixing definitions?  Dude, just stop this, put down your fucking bible, stop trawling your creatard websites...... and pick up a textbook.  

There is the observation of evolution..a fact.  Then, there is the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis)...which as others have tried to beat into the brick wall you call your skull...is a vast and well attested constellation of facts leveraged as an explanation for the initial observation, the singular fact of evolution - that organisms have and continue to change over the course of time.  There's no need for me to argue anything to preserve that "fact status".   Neither you nor I deny that life has and continues to change...do we?  So you, too, even if you weren't aware of it, accept the fact of evolution...regardless of whether or not you accept the Theory of Evolution.

Neither the fact nor the theory -require- that you and I and a chimp share a common ancestry....that;s just an observation borne out by genetic evidence, yet more facts...which are explicable in the context -of- the theory.  Some people do and have proposed separate origins for different types of life....which have since evolved.

There are three ways the word 'evolution' is used when talking about biology: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

Many atheist combine them a separate them to suit their particular needs at the time. I was trying to clarify what you meant.

(August 22, 2016 at 11:58 am)RobertE Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 8:49 am)SteveII Wrote: Did I call anything related to God creating the world a 'fact'? No, so you are answering my question with "you don't have any facts either"?

Therefore I have to stand by the default response, unlike you. If you cannot give proof that God created the universe, earth, the species and of course, all the nasty bacteria and viruses that kill people, then you have to accept the consequences of being ridiculed. Personally, I don't mind christians, muslims, sikhs or hindus on this forum, since some are nice to talk to. However, when it comes to evolution, you stand by a 2,000+ year old theory that the world was created in 7 days. For example, what makes Noah so special that he has to live to hundreds of years old, when even today, the life expectancy of someone who lives in Sierra Leone is around 49 years of age for a male? As for evolution in itself, it is still happening. Have you ever asked yourself as to why elephants have smaller tusks compared to over a 100 years ago? Here is an article that shows that God isn't behind this miracle of nature. Without realising it, poachers have indeed inadvertently aided evolution and proved Darwins theory.

You continue to ascribe beliefs to me for which you have no basis for. I never said I was a literal 7-day creationist. Actually, I don't believe I have even suggested I do not believe in some sort of evolutionary history. I wanted to discuss, in a reasonable way, what our knowledge consists of and what conclusions can be drawn from it.

(August 19, 2016 at 12:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Here I thought that Science was about finding the truth concerning nature.  Not supporting a priori bias's... my bad

[emphasis mine]

Which doesn't leave room to consider the supernatural, now does it?

Lol, at "supporting a priori biases." That's literally the definition of creationism.

(August 22, 2016 at 1:26 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 11:58 am)RobertE Wrote: Therefore I have to stand by the default response, unlike you. If you cannot give proof that God created the universe, earth, the species and of course, all the nasty bacteria and viruses that kill people, then you have to accept the consequences of being ridiculed. Personally, I don't mind christians, muslims, sikhs or hindus on this forum, since some are nice to talk to. However, when it comes to evolution, you stand by a 2,000+ year old theory that the world was created in 7 days. For example, what makes Noah so special that he has to live to hundreds of years old, when even today, the life expectancy of someone who lives in Sierra Leone is around 49 years of age for a male? As for evolution in itself, it is still happening. Have you ever asked yourself as to why elephants have smaller tusks compared to over a 100 years ago? Here is an article that shows that God isn't behind this miracle of nature. Without realising it, poachers have indeed inadvertently aided evolution and proved Darwins theory.

You continue to ascribe beliefs to me for which you have no basis for. I never said I was a literal 7-day creationist. Actually, I don't believe I have even suggested I do not believe in some sort of evolutionary history. I wanted to discuss, in a reasonable way, what our knowledge consists of and what conclusions can be drawn from it.

This is one of my quotes from a post to you:

Quote:I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

(August 22, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 12:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Here I thought that Science was about finding the truth concerning nature.  Not supporting a priori bias's... my bad

[emphasis mine]

Which doesn't leave room to consider the supernatural, now does it?  

Lol, at "supporting a priori biases."  That's literally the definition of creationism.

Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

(August 22, 2016 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: There are three ways the word 'evolution' is used when talking about biology: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

A citation would be useful. A 'descent' one.