Physicians are scientists, if the people who design perfume fragrances are scientists then so is Ron Paul. You don't have to work for NASA to be a scientist. And despite what a lot of people want to believe. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life, is still just a theory. Having said that, I don't support Ron Paul. He has a tendency to over simplify complex issues. And his stance on not raising the debt ceiling would have proven disastrous for the country.
Don't you mean natural selection? Evolution is hardly just a theory. We knew organisms evolved long before Darwin.
Incorrect on all accounts. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. The Theory of Evolution explains the gradual changing process over the course of time. Linking the two together is very disingenuous and utterly wrong. And secondly, it's not simply "just a theory" as many people misconstrue. It's a scientific theory based on a little thing called the scientific method which provides factual analysis to an idea. Learn to know the difference, Thump. This is one hell of a fuck up.
I get your point. However, I stated that "Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life, is still just a theory." When most people say evolution vs creation, they are talking about the origin of life. The guy in the video seemed to have an axe to grind with Ron Paul because Mr. Paul stated that he doesn't believe in evolution. I surmised that what he was talking about was the Origins of life. so that is why I worded my statement as I did. Besides, no matter how compelling the theory we chose to accept, in the end it is all just theory. I believe in the scientific method, I just don't think it has adequately explained the origin of life. but I do believe in evolution.
You're still not getting it at all. The Theory of Evolution has NEVER been used to explain the origins of life at all. That's a misconception conceived by unintelligible individuals who don't understand the working process at all. Secondly, to simply imply "it's just a theory" is a dishonest perspective on the whole concept. Don't equate our everyday usage of the word "theory" with the "scientific theory". Science requires proof, not belief or mere speculation. It's proven that evolution have taken shape in the way it's expressed in the science field. We, as human beings, are examples of that. Try reading the links I've posted before you respond. That'll help you understand what I'm talking about.
HaHa, your a quick responder, I was editing my comment when you posted. I do believe in evolution. I am already familiar with the concept of Abiogenesis. I however reject it as adequate proof of the origins of life, because too much of the theory is conjecture and "finger crossing". Scientific theory can only work when we are dealing with a large sampling of data. The current theories of the origin of life just don't have enough data to be proven one way or another. or to be called a Truly "scientific theory".
I'm very uncertain you are familiar with the concept of Abiogenesis, let alone the concept of evolution. You can't simply say you "believe" because belief requires faith. Acknowledging that evolution occurred would be a more accurate phrase since, after all, there is mountains of proof and factual evidence provided. You speak as though there isn't enough date. Two years ago, life has been created in the lab through chemical compounds forming together. And from there, the process of evolution occurred. The problem I see here with creationists is that they have a hard time trying to articulate their position on "God Did It" using junk science and it's muddled into the mindsets of the uneducated. [YOUTUBE]U6QYDdgP9eg[/YOUTUBE]
Hmm.... interesting video, The scientific theory given in that video seems to say, that this is how life could have started. They say that the building blocks could have aligned themselves in the right sequences and at the right time to form the first life, Well I agree. Every thing stated could have happened. But it is the Numbers and probability that I get hung up on. The statistical odds don't convince me. As a former gambling man, I just cant get past those numbers. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. One last thing, you made special mentioned of my use of the word belief/believe. I have had discussions similar to this and the people all seem to get hung up on that word. Is there some significance to the use of that word when discussing something like this? Does the word belief represent an invisible wall between these two schools of thought? Does It make people think that those who use it are not open to scientific concepts?
Numbers could easily be twisted around. However, that's normally done by people who generally throw numbers around (a la ID supporters) and it would take someone who specialize in mathematics or probability to see through the smoke and mirrors. I doubt your gambling credentials would be of some merit, unless you're really skilled in mathematics and differential equations. As for the word belief, it's thrown around and used far too loosely when giving a statement. Especially when the information age have a lot of websites which can favor either or, the perception of reality is often muddled with ideology. So when people use "belief", it's simply an assertion of a personal belief that lacks any real evidence. And in the case of science, belief doesn't have room unless factual evidence could be presented. In short, science is about proof of that belief and if it doesn't complete the scientific method, then the idea is broken and would have to start from scratch. This is one problem with the creationist/ID community, they're quick to dismiss actual evidence, but when presented the opportunity to prove the existence of God through the scientific method, they simply can't because...it's simply a belief.
I would never try to prove the existence of God using the scientific method. Because a person who believes in God and a person who doesn't, can look at the same evidence and say "see that proves my point". Some people even believe that concepts like Abiogenesis are true, but it had a divine hand that got the ball rolling? I personally don't believe that, but there isn't really anyway it can be proven or unproven. It just gos to show how these discussions can boil down to what we choose to accept.
You can still hold the belief in a supernatural entity. There have been scientists who do hold religious views. However, they would never let that interfere with the basic principles of science...which is secular and atheistic to put it into perspective. As for the entire existence of God, that's all philosophical and psychological. But that's an entirely different story.
The "origins" of life, cell division, LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor), etc. are all very interesting topics. My main concern however was the idea evolution is simply just a theory. One would suspect since organisms evolve this would have been the case from the very beginning. Keep in mind physicists have yet to come to consensus on whether the universe is finite or infinite. Its always been a question of not whether organisms evolve but by what mechanism do organisms adapt. Darwin came to the theory of natural selection, which science has since extended considerable credibility. I have my reservations about the selectionist model, namely gradualism and especially sexual selection. But I wouldn't go as far as to say evolution is just another scientific theory. Biology would make no sense whatever absent evolution.
I'd go into details, but I'm just wired out, so here's my recommendation. Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. He's an evolutionary biologist and specializes in evolutionary theory and this book is a strong guide to help you understand pretty much everything there is to know about evolution, abiogenesis, and the issues with intelligent design and creationism. This a breakdown of the thirteen chapters here: 1. Only a Theory? (Nature of scientific theory and fallibility) 2. Dogs, Cows and Cabbages (Artificial Selection) 3. The Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution 4. Silence and Slow Time (Discusses the Age of the Earth and the Geological Time Scale) 5. Before Our Very Eyes (Examples of Evolution Observed) 6. Missing link? What do you mean, 'Missing'? (the fossil record) 7. Missing persons? Missing no longer (Human Evolution) 8. You did it yourself in nine months (a statement attributed to J. B. S. Haldane; discusses developmental biology) 9. The ark of the continents (biogeography and plate tectonics) 10. The tree of cousinship (the tree of life, homology and analogy) 11. History written all over us (vestigiality and unintelligent design) 12. Arms races and 'evolutionary theodicy' (coevolution and evolutionary arms races) 13. There is grandeur in this view of life (based on the final passage of On the Origin of Species)
I assure you, with all due respect, I'm not a novice. I'm actually well acquainted with Dawkins' Darwinian synthesis and its for that reason I wouldn't recommend him either as a guide for evolutionary development or religious thought (just as an agnostic... atheism annoys me). Obviously Dawkins is a challenging public intellectual. But he's also what I would consider one of the more extreme proponents of gradualism, going back to his thesis in "The Blind Watchmaker" where he argues natural selection is "blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view." I feel his being such a fierce opponent of theism led him to throwing away any teleological explanations along with efficiency, and settling for a cumulative, more or less blind manifestation of adaptive complexity. These are called "Just So Stories", because they establish a narrative wherein thought, actions, behaviors, etc happen to be "just so" and just barely lend themselves to empirical verification. I fall on the side of Stephen Jay Gould and those who view adaptive complexity as not a consequence of gradual/cumulative selective forces, as Darwin and Dawkins would have it, but the result of what bio-anthropologists call punctuated equilibrium - the theory that most evolutionary change occurs in rapid increments. Punctualism actually goes back to the redoubtable Ernst Mayr and his geographic speciation theory, but it was Gould and Eldredge (along with Stanley and Vbra) who found that stasis is the rule in the fossil record. They concluded punctualism is a more sufficient way of accounting for higher-level selection (otherwise known as species selection). It sure beats what Gould described as Darwin's "insensibility of intermediacies." Ironically, punctualism seems to be a much more careful formulation than gradualism. See, now this didn't help in saving me from my own pedantry.
Why does atheism annoy you? Why would it have any impact at all on you if you are not an atheist? Curious
Certitude. Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin, only the former believes science gives them this righteous justification to attack the beliefs of others (not all, but MOST atheists). Its possible to be affected by things you don't necessarily believe in. What else can explain the sheer petulance of atheism.
I've never found either atheists or agnostics to be petulant. But I have run into a whole bunch of believers who seem to think atheism is worthy of contempt and or attack. The most "righteous" acting people I've ever known were fundamentalists in a variety of belief systems. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's simply a lack of belief in deity. And while *some* Christians, Jews & Muslims portray a massive lack of respect for those who believe in other religions or other deities, or who have no belief, and I've found the same thing in the fundamentalist parts of the pagan community, personally I think whatever floats your boat is fine, as long as you don't use it as a cudgel to attack the beliefs or lack of beliefs of others. No one can "prove" one way or another if a deity or deities exist. It's a matter of FAITH. The existence of other faiths, and those who don't have a faith is something which everyone ought to deal with using a modicum of respect and common courtesy.
Your statement isn't true at all and hold a very broad perspective based on some talking heads. Atheism simply rejects the idea of a higher power. However, there are atheists who are spiritual and still believe in things like ghosts, demons, and other supernatural elements. (i.e. Buddhism, Jainism) Secondly, I don't get why you think atheists are "attacking" beliefs. Rather, they are criticizing and questioning the obvious absurdities found within these ideas that are no longer a necessity, but rather a want from the human ego. That's not an attack. That's a reality that most people who consider as attacking refuse to acknowledge. And last I remember, a lot of the hardline attacks stem from many of the people who identify themselves as a certain religion. Certainly, religion is something personal. But that part isn't practiced with modern day believers since they rather instill it within a society. Lastly, not all atheist think science is the end all be all of all things as you misconstrue so woefully. Science offers something that faith cannot: answers. But it doesn't translate to atheists claiming they know everything through science (another misconception). They are less likely to use dualism to substitute whatever ignorance we may have relating to the unknown. Rather than using spirituality, "I don't know" or tangible ideas would hold greater merit.
