How you figure that's my problem I haven't the foggiest idea. So the way you figure it, Geocentrism was a stronger truth than Heliocentrism in the days of Copernicus. Right?
No, geocentrism was a theory based on observations. Like some other theories it turned out to be wrong. Science progressed and disproved the theory. Heliocentrism has been proven to be correct. When geocentrism was the consensus there was no other theory so it is fair to say that it was better than having no explanation at all.
So you're really talking about the origin of life not evolution. We know evolution occurs we can see it question is where it began. That is unknown. There is a hypothesis about primordial soup but I also think it's unlikely that these amino acids just stitch to themselves into DNA.
There is a saying that just listening to the voices in your head can at times stop you from doing the wrong thing. However arguing with the voices in your head does indicate that there might be a problem. That said when it comes to consistently LOSING the arguments with the voices in your head then there definitely is a problem.
..moving goal posts.. Abiogenesis is closely linked to common ancestry, and BOTH beliefs are required in the religion of atheistic naturalism. Most theists, who have been indoctrinated by progressive institutions, believe in a God, somewhere in there, who guided or used common ancestry to populate the planet. This is probably the majority opinion, but it is based on bad science, assumptions, assertions, and mostly, Indoctrination. Common ancestry will eventually join other debunked 'theories', like the 4 humors, geocentrism, leeches for bad blood, etc. But until then, ignorance is indoctrinated into a deluded culture, where mandates replace critical thinking and skepticism.
I would call this projection.. frustrated with the dearth of evidence, with only fallacies to support your beliefs, you lash out at any who dare question the sacred tenets of your faith.
You’ve been challenged numerous times to provide your scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, and the entire field of biology. “Nuh uh” isn’t an argument, evidence nor does it rebut the science you’ve been given.
That is your entire argument, Mr, 'nuh uh' hand waiver! And btw, you 'wave' your hand, to dismiss something. You don't 'waive' hands.. But i digress.. back to ignoring your heckling. I can't remember a single post from you that contained any arguments, facts, or reason, yet you pretend to have presented, 'all this evidence!!' I look forward to the next 'hand waiving! Nuh uh!'
I posted a few problems, with the BELIEF in universal common ancestry.. nobody wants to address or rebut them with science, reason, or facts? Just deflections, ad hom, and projection? ..still illustrating the OP, that fallacies are the only things used, to defend common ancestry?
I acknowledge your total inability to provide a shred of scientific evidence to support your position. And I accept your concession.
I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christan. And even if you aren't I'm not trying to knock your beliefs. The origin of life is completely unknown we have no idea how it started why it started. Scientifically speaking of course. I believe that God created the universe, and therefore all the life that dwells within, as well as physics. I have no idea how he did it, and Further he didn't explain. Science figures out how it happened not why. Maybe God didn't explain it because we want to figure it out. I'm order to eventual debunk anything where have to be people studying and experimenting with the theories. All science is falsifiable. That's one of the key facets of science
Not to the true believers, it hasn't. They simply call the dissenting academics names and pretend they lie. This is how Darwinists do "science" (wink, nudge). "You're stupid so shut up." It's no different from the Global Warming Fraud. It's how Leftists act and talk.
USfan, I'm not getting any younger myself and for my part I work hard at not throwing insults around (like bigot fro example) at people just because they disagree with me. I may not always succeed but I try. Basically I adopt the viewpoint that I wont say anything in a thread that I wouldn't say if I was talking to them face to face over a beer. I also avoid using the Ignore button which IMO equates to an 'ignorance' button - you cant learn if you don't engage. I do expect however expect people to have enough courage in their own convictions to simply state what their position is, especially as is the case at hand when they are the person who started the thread in the first place. I'll also note that a brief in the validly of a particular scientific theory (based on a review of the available evidence) does or should not blind anyone to gaps in the evidence supporting it or potential flaws in the theory concerned. Chem never bothered to ask me but if he had I can point to two potentially serioius gaps in our knowledge of the science surrounding the origins of life on this planet that science has not (as yet) been able to explain. The first is the origin of the first cellular life forms (Prokaryotic cells). To the best of our knowledge these appear to the simplest, oldest life forms on earth. Scientists have amply proven that all the essential biochemicals required for a simple living organism could be created by natural processes within the early solar system and on the surface of the Earth. It appears Prokaryotic came into existence on Earth about 3.8 to 4 billion years ago. Unless there has been a recent change I haven't heard about however Science has no clear idea how the membranes and cellular structures of these simple organisms actually formed. Plenty of speculation yes, firm conclusions no. The second involves is the next stage of the evolutionary process - the development of Eukaryotes cell. These cells have much more complex internal structures (organelles) and are far more efficient at generating energy than Prokaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells include all plants and animals, fungi and algae on the planet. They appear to have been come into existence via the formation of symbiotic relationships between groups of Prokaryotic cells which eventually led to some of these cells physically merging (being absorbed) by others. Again, unless I've missed something recently we don't know how this process could have worked without physically damaging both cells beyond repair. The best guess is multiples instances of this occurring over a prolonged period of time all ending in failure until one time (and it only has to be one time) it finally worked. After that the innate efficiency of Eukaryotic cells is more than enough to drive the increasing complexity of life via evolutionary forces. I hasten to add these two points represent gaps in our current understanding of how life evolved and not IMO (for whatever that is worth) fatal blows to scientific theories. But Chem never asked, largely he just sniped at people who disagreed with him while reveal his own ideas. That is not debating.
Science appears to have solved the membrane issue. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x When, not if, Science does reproduce the origin of life as we understand it in a laboratory there won't be any change in the tune of the science deniers. Just as they currently deny all of the evidence of evolution and geology they will also deny the evidence of the origin of life. They have a vested interest in denying KNOWLEDGE because knowledge is a DIRECT THREAT to their way of believing. Normal rational theists like yourself understand that religion is largely a metaphorical concept about how to live one's life and that the stories are not intended to be taken literally. The science deniers take their beliefs LITERALLY which is why they encounter Cognitive Dissonance when they are faced with Scientific Knowledge that contradicts their beliefs. They cannot debate because that would require them having an UNDERSTANDING of the scientific subject matter as you do. They cannot achieve that understanding of the scientific subject matter because it CONFLICTS with their Confirmation Bias. In essence science deniers are just engaging in Naysayer Fallacies because that is all that they have which is sad when you think about it. They are depriving themselves of having an education that would give them a better understanding of the world around them. So lower your expectations because science deniers do not have what it takes to raise their game and engage in actual meaningful debates on scientific topics largely because of the learning limitations that they placed upon themselves with their literalist beliefs.
Yes, I was aware of recent developments in Synthetic Biology. I didn't refer to them in my post however because its basically still a 'work in progress' and the strides that are being made are occurring under very precisely controlled laboratory conditions. If we progress this tech to the point where we can demonstrate how it would (or might) have occurred 'naturally' in the primordial environmental conditions then present on Earth we have something. So I'm more or less holding off on this issue until further progress is made.
For whats its worth usfan (which is probably not much) I didn't see your post and didn't lodge a compliant.
No doubt the adjective is used in the implied context of a rigorously defined metric. So which do you suppose is more radical: the prokaryote to eukaryote transition, or the animal sentience to human self-awareness transition?
...prokaryotic cells to eukaryotes cells. Self awareness as a trait doesn't preserve itself very well in the fossil of archeological record. You could for example argue that cave paintings and evidence of human burial practices are proof that Early Modern Humans were self aware. But earlier in the fossil record - it gets very hard. Unless you start using tool using ability and the sophistication of those tools as a substitute metric. All you can say is that it seems to have been a gradual process rather than a sudden leap from (A) to (B) - at least until the degree of self awareness in a species reaches some kind of 'critical mass' and ignites. For that matter various other social mammals, not just chimps and other primates, elephants for example demonstrate varying degrees of self awareness or at least recognition of other group members as individuals which presupposes they recognize them as 'like me but not me' so to speak. As best we can determine however the development of eukaryotic cells represented a sudden huge leap capabilities of living cells. Prokaryotic just cant form larger complex groups let alone develop further into large complex organisms. Even slime molds are eukaryotic if I remember correctly.
What's missing is a reason to think that idea makes any more sense than variation in photon spin. Not nearly good enough. The problem being, there are people who can do that who are nonetheless, to all outward appearances, functionally devoid of self-awareness.
I totally agree that ignorance is indoctrinated into a deluded culture where religious dogma replaces critical thinking and factual understanding WITH skepticism.
Which is a I wold argue is an unfair/false comparison. Photon spin is a fixed parameter (of 1). Self awareness even in humans is a spectrum. Which was my point. How? I made it quite clear that self awareness is a moving parameter. As was my point regarding animals - which BTW I am not arguing are in specific cases as self aware as humans. I'll leave that kind of precise measurement/analysis to the experts.
