Not so because it just isnt so. Sometimes it works that way, sometimes it does not. Just a little, so little knowledge of biology would be necessary to avoid such dabbler mistakes.
skim through this thread, or any of the evolution threads. assertion after assertion is made declaring evolution 'proven fact!' This is not my claim, but those defending or promoting evolution. Shirley you know i do not 'cut & paste' from any other sites, unless i reference it. My words are my own, & i source any references. I think your accusation of plagiarism is uncalled for & libelous. If that is the extent of your 'arguments', our debate will be short lived. Dogmatic conclusions about origins is a leap of faith. It is not based in proven scientific explanations, or even valid theories. Any that require a mysterious 'force' that cannot be observed, repeated, tested, or falsified are leaps of faith, not science.
This is still a dodge, to evade the subject at hand. the question is, 'Does life increase in complexity?' The hypothesis, that we are subjecting to the scientific method is, 'Evolution is the mechanism that causes an increase in complexity in life forms.' Charts have been taught & displayed in every public institution, on nature shows, & children's books, showing a 'progression' from simpler life forms to more complex. Evolution is hailed as the source of this wonder. So nitpicking about technicalities with definitions does not address the issue, & is a deflection, not contributing to the process of testing & inquiry.
The chart is very simplistic and kind of cartoonish, but it is essentially a correct depiction. You have some specific beef with it?
The crux of the argument IS origins.. how did we get here? There are many theories or speculations about origins, but most of them hinge on 2 basic possibilities: 1. Natural methods in the universe.. abiogenesis. 2. Seeded/created/imagined by unknown beings. These are my premises, upon which i will build the arguments. If you can present another 'theory' of origins that is not covered by these 2 possibilities, i would be happy to consider it. 1. Both of these theories are speculative. We do not have proof that either are proven facts. We build models upon these assumptions, but since they are both assumed, neither model can be called 'empirical' or even a valid hypothesis. They are assumptions & speculations. 2. Any building upon these 'theories' is subject to accepting the previous assumptions. No scientific conclusions can be based on these.. even if the logic or further supporting evidence is impeccable, the assumption is needed to base the argument upon. While probability is fine for molding beliefs, it is not used for 'settled scientific facts'. Those need to be tested, observed, repeated, & falsified to be considered 'science'. We have not been able to test either of these 'theories' of origins, even though we have tried. We were hopeful that we could define #1, but even that has been elusive. We do not 'know' how life begins. We cannot replicate it under the most rigorous laboratory conditions, so it seems to be beyond the scope of scientific examination or even definition.. at least for now. I am hopeful that many of these mysteries will be discovered, as many have before us. Therefore. Speculations about sentient beings beyond the galaxies or in an unknown spiritual dimension are also not empirical. They have NO evidence, & are entirely speculation. Since we can no more scientifically 'prove' either theory of origins, neither can claim superiority as a basis for further speculations. IF you assume one or the other, THEN you can make logical assumptions & extrapolations. But since neither has been proved, empirically, any further building upon them is based on an assumption, which qualifies the conclusions as being assumptions as well. But they are not 'settled scientific fact'. We can no more define how life begins, than how it evolves. Both of these are speculative extrapolations, & are not subject to the scientific method. If anything, the observable sciences of genetics has made the probability of macro evolution even less likely. I would appreciate any rebuttal to start at the 2 basic 'theories' of origins. Those are where the assumptions begin, so that is also where the rebuttal should begin. Also, this is primarily NOT a debate over definitions.. those need clarification, obviously, but most times definition squabbles are used to deflect, not enlighten. Nit picking finer details about some term does not contribute to the topic, usually.
If you are really interested in biology, then you should sign up with one of your local colleges and study it in detail. You'll learn much more that way than you ever will by debating the uninformed opinions of random forum posters.
Firstly, we must begin with your understanding of "Hypothesis" as this is fundamental to any discussion or rebuttal. A hypothesis is essentially a well formulated idea that can be explores to create theory...which we use to further explore and examine reality on the way to understanding and possibly defining natural law. We also need to examine your definition of "Empirical Truth", as this can easily be used to eliminate any possible data based upon the individual acceptance of a thing as false based on individual understanding. However........given the two criteria you have presented, both are possibilities and in fact may be bundled into a single hypothesis: It has been established that certain forms of life can exist within rocks in deep space. It is further a well established fact that our planet has been bombarded by these rocks since before it existed as a planet. It is quite possible that this life was seeded onto our planet billions of years ago and evolved under changing condition, environmental adaptation, and competition to become what we see today over extreme time frames. This hypothesis is very possible when considered under the auspices of what we have noted through established and documented scientific inquiry.
It has been established that the universe is about 14 billion years old. It has been established that life exists outside of our planet. It has been established that in our own existence we sentient begins seek to create life and become gods. It has been established that our advancement towards to creating life increases at an exponential rate over time. Given that there exists life outside of our planet, given that sentient life seeks to become god, given the age of the universe, there exists with near certainty a life creating god.
Man will not stop our own advancement until we become omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. We seek to become gods. We always have. Since we agree that there are other beings in the universe why do we think that any other sentient being would not be the same and/or have not succeeded?
Short answer: Many of us accept the inevitability of growth and advancement that will allow us to seem "Godlike". However, many also cannot do so until they dismiss the God within their minds.
You just destroyed almost all the forums & chat rooms on the internet!! You also illustrate my premise in another thread, about the trend of anti science.. http://www.politicalforum.com/science/349804-rise-anti-science.html ..we should leave this to the 'experts' you seem to think.. why should mere mortals feel smart enough to delve into the mysteries of life.. leave that to the high priests.. errr.. professional teachers.. to dispense at their benevolent mercy.
The reason I am one of the most feared speakers and debtors by my peers, epically those form the local universities, is that I am constantly refining my arguments on these forums. Here is some actual video taken from my last debate with 3 "academics". [video=youtube;zYwdzYC3uUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYwdzYC3uUc&t=0m28s[/video] I know what they are going to say before they say it because modern academics are just stenographers.
More like, we cannot become more while dreaming in ignorance....there simply is not room for a sky fairy and intellectual growth in the same package.
Why not? Does it not give us something to strive for? Do we not look to our betters to improve ourselves?
Now, that's what i'm talking about!! Thanks for a reasoned reply, with ad hominems notably absent. I don't have time for a deeper response, but i'll take a stab at a couple of points. Re: your 'single hypothesis'. 1. 'forms' of life in rocks in deep space. accepted, contingent on data. 2. Earth bombarded by rocks.. accepted. observable. 3. POSSIBLE... accepted.. with the caveat that 'possible' is not empirical.. it is fine for speculating, but not as scientific proof.. it is a hypothesis, which can have other 'possible' explanations. 4. SEEDED.. this assumes that life does indeed 'increase in complexity', which is the topic of this thread. It has been my consistent, unrebutted claim that there is no mechanism to support this assumption. All of our experimentation concludes otherwise, that organisms do not increase in complexity, but decrease, as fewer genes become available. Any alleged 'increases' are imagined or presumed, not observed. But, since we are talking now about 'origins' then this is as valid of a theory/hypothesis/guess as any other. Some theorize alien seeding, some an unknown, undefined natural process, & some theorize an advanced being. I still see basically the 2 options above, as the root explanation of origins. Your hypothesis is merely an expansion of #1 in post #331 .. but still does not explain the 'origin'. Your rocks are already seeded with life, but no explanation as to their origin. So i stick with these 2. Life (as we know it) either began spontaneously, by some unknown natural process, or was seeded/created/imagined by unknown beings. I can think of no other possibility. 1. It has been 'hypothesized' that the earth is 14 billion yrs old, based on a myriad of assumptions, that we cannot assume over such a great period of time. 2. It has been 'hypothesized'.. i don't know that there are proven facts for this.. other than the aforementioned space rocks, which need more scrutiny in this debate to become valid points. No 'common knowledge' presumptions should be made in matters like this. 3. accepted. Humans seem to have *some* who presume omnipotence, as well as divinity. there is enough evidence in human history to make this case. 4. 'Assumed'.. is the better term. Yes, humans have been trying to create life for perhaps millennia, but have never been able to do it. We cannot assume they will, someday, just because they want to. We did learn to fly, go to space, split the atom, & many other amazing feats of scientific derring do.. but this is a big one.. THE big one, & it still remains a mystery. I remain hopeful, but cannot state it with any absolute, conclusive terms. As of now, we just do not know. So our 'advancements' in this specific area are no closer to realization than when the first human tried it. 5. Your logic is solid, but built upon assumptions, which are fine for hypothesizing 'within' the model, but cannot present a definitive conclusion. You must include the caveat, 'based on the earlier assumptions' for the conclusion to be valid.. it is not absolute truth, or even an exclusive extrapolation about origins.. just another theory/hypothesis/guess among many. Here are just a few assumptions made about the age of the universe, based primarily on calculation from the speed of light, divided by the distance to the furthest seen light source: 1. the speed of light is constant, with no other factors involved. 2. the universe is transparent, uniformly throughout. 3. All of light started at once, ala a big bang. 4. There are more galaxies beyond what we have seen, but the light hasn't gotten to us, yet. These are pretty major assumptions, to then dogmatically declare, 'the universe is 14 billion years old.' Sure, maybe.. IF you make all the assumptions. But the limits of our knowledge is pretty great, in spite of human arrogance & pretense of omnipotence. So i see the statement 'the universe is 14 billion years old', as a dogmatic assertion, based on a lot of UNscientific assumptions, that are beyond examination by the scientific method.
An imaginary friend can not be "my better" or improve my ability to grow...instead it prevents me from searching for and knowing reality.
Bull. One of the primary ways people make themselves better is to "fake it before you make it" in other words they invent an imaginary persona an imaginary standard to strive for.
That is the first time I have ever heard of this approach to enlightenment...But I suppose it could possibly work for some.
Ah but it was. Einstein's imagination actual proved reality better than any physical experiment at the time.
