- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,282
- Reaction score
- 18,292
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
There is a great deal of empirical evidence in favor of the idea of abiogenesis and evolution. You are just adamantly unwilling to expose yourself to any of it.There is no more proof of Evolutionary Origins than there is proof of biblical origins.
There is zero empirical evidence of supernatural intervention. It is an unfalsifiable claim, which is all but designed to be immune to evidentiary or scientific examination.
And no, the fact that you personally find abiogenesis to be counterintuitive is not "proof."
Determining that humans and chimpanzees share about 97% of the same DNA does, in fact, prove that we are closely related to chimpanzees. Examination of the DNA evidence indicates that humans and neanderthals shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. Almost all organisms share a great deal of DNA -- e.g. humans have common genes with fruit flies, frogs, fish and so forth.Just because a man named Jesus existed is not proof of God being the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient creator of all, just like finding the skeleton of an upright walking ape with a slightly larger brain container shows that we are related.
There is no evidence to support the idea that someone flipped a switch and started evolution in the year 6000 BCE.
Ignoring the DNA evidence is equivalent to ducking your head in the sand.
No, it is a scientific position that clashes with some -- but definitely not all -- religious beliefs.Who said it was a religion? It is, however, an anti-religion....
Similarly, the idea that the universe is over 13 billion years old, and that humans occupy an incomprehensibly small part thereof, clashes with beliefs held by some, but not all, religions. This does not mean that evidence of the age of the universe is "false" or "anti-religion."
It is ultimately no different than recognizing how germs, not demons or vengeful deities, cause disease.
There is no "religious teaching of evolution," any more than there is a "religious teaching that the universe is 13 billion years old." Neither are based on religious beliefs. Neither rely on religious principles as proof. Both are exclusively scientific claims, and it is not the responsibility of the scientists to reconcile the evidence with anyone's religious beliefs.If you want to allow the religious teaching of evolution in our schools, by say Catholics, that would be preferable to what is going on now....
No, it has merely been refuted. Pretty much every instance of alleged irreducible complexity has, in fact, been explained. Behe's position was so thoroughly debunked, that he was utterly incapable of defending it in a courtroom a few years ago.I am sure, again, since your bias is in that direction, you will be led down that track. You see "irreducible complexity" has been refuted to your satisfaction…and to the satisfaction of those who believe as you do, but has not been refuted to those who hold to a higher standard.
Again, the fact that you personally find abiogenesis to be counterintuitive is not proof of anything. The idea that "there is no absolute space and time" or "subatomic particles share the properties of waves and particles" are highly counterintuitive -- and supported by all the current evidence at our disposal. In fact, many concepts of quantum mechanics make a great deal less sense than abiogenesis, and are in fact proven to be the case (e.g. entanglement).But I guess it’s so much better that we are talking about rising up out of the primordial goo, having what, rocks and gases as our most distant relatives...then huge gaps with missing information coupled with silly supposition, that’s just soooo so much better.
The claim that the human body is 60% water is also thoroughly counter-intuitive. And yet, still true.
Since we have not strip-mined every single inch of the planet, and since only a small percentage of bones become fossils, it makes a great deal of sense that we have not found every possible fossil for every possible species variation on the planet. We also have plenty of DNA evidence to support the claim, and getting more and better data every day.
DNA testing is contemporary, it's empirical, it's evidence-based, and does in fact show that (for example) chimpanzees are in fact our closest living relatives. Similarly, scientists are hashing out whether humans did, for example, interbreed with neanderthals.Uh, wrong...while not my area of expertise, I believe those are both things about phontons that can be put to practical tests to verify... we cannot do that with your gaps... and prehistoric apes that you believe are our closest relatives.
The "basis" is taxonomy, and actual evidence of interbreeding.Is that what your high priests say is it? What is the basis? The fact that they can interbreed shows they are more closely associated than this attempt to separate them would lead us to believe.
What you fail to understand is that taxonomy is the imposition of human categories on a natural process, primarily based on phenotypes, and in many respects is imprecise. No one lined up every species on the planet and made each of them so thoroughly genetically distinct that they could not possibly interbreed. The reality is that different species have common ancestors, and over the course of millions or billions of years, slight genetic mutations have resulted in genomes and phenotypes that vary in slightly different ways. And as a result, species can in fact interbreed.
E.g. members of the genus canis -- domesticated dogs, dingoes, coyotes, jackals and some wolves -- are often capable of interbreeding, and producing fertile offspring. You should also keep in mind that Canis lupus familiaris (i.e. the domesticated dog) did not exist before humans actually domesticated them. Early humans noticed that some wolves were friendlier to humans than others, so they isolated and interbred those more amenable wolves, and eventually they became a different species. We have fossil evidence of domesticated dogs dating to around 36,000 years ago, whereas DNA evidence suggests 100,000 years. (A Russian scientist was able to domesticate foxes in about 30 generations using normal breeding techniques, by the way.)
Again, here is the Wiki page on species hybridization: Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, they are.Well, do tell. When the species is really the same, cats mating with other cats, how do we get rocks to amoeba to fish to apes to man? Those are far far far more disparate groups...
However, we're talking about processes that took 3.5 billion years. And again, scientists have produced actual possible abiogenesis in the lab, basically taking a bunch of elements, put them into a specific environment, added a spark, and created amino acids -- the building blocks of life.
Yeah, I don't think you actually grasp my arguments, let alone basic biology. All you seem to do is repeat baseless and debunked claims, and deny the rather abundant evidence.I think I know enough to put your arguments to bed...good night arguments.
The simple fact is that evolution is a scientific and evidence-based claim, all the way back to The Origin of Species. Your objections amount to nothing more than a refusal to accept the facts.
No, it's pretty clear that nothing I have said purports to eliminate religion from the public square.It is what the OP is about, church and state... and YOU do prove, just by the above statement that you are on the side that goes far beyond what the constitution states or implies. Straw man? No. Talking about the OP, yes.
Again, I've held that it is perfectly fine to make religious speeches and perform religious rituals in public. It's fine to temporarily display religious iconography on state-owned land, such as public parks. There is no problem whatsoever with a public display of religious iconography or statements on private land.
The line is drawn when actions of the state have a religious dimension. Private citizens holding up a copy of the Ten Commandments in a public park is 100% acceptable. A judge who prominently displays a copy of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom is unconstitutional.
And nothing in the Constitution limits the restriction on government to establishing a "national church." The prohibition is on establishment of religion.. Any religion whatsoever.
Thus, claiming that I want to evict religion from the public square is a strawman.
Get it?