Genesis vs Evoluion

[Gawdzilla Sama]

May I ask what indicators?

Some kind of carbon. Didn't bookmark the article, it was on ScienceDaily's website.

[SGOS]

Why not just have arithmetic and stop with that?  Why not just have Play-Do and stop with that.  People always go beyond.

And some of the most important discoveries in math were made by those who went beyond arithmetic.  I don't know what the next step is beyond Play-Do, but that's a purely nonsense comparison.  Nonsense doesn't beckon such great men.  Nothing can be derived from nonsense, just more nonsense.  Your defense of nonsense is quite curious.

[GBTG]

I did not run away lol. I wanted some insight about the transfer and perception of information, in a non theistic community. To that end my post had served its purpose. I am not easily offended, and I did ask for your opinion by seeking you all out. I also don't see any of these communications as a win/lose or ranking of intelligence.

- trdsf, I really appreciate your insights and posts.

In regard to "Theory" vs "Scientific Theory"

Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory? Specifically if all cells must come from a previous cell, which cannot be spontaneously generated, where did the first cell come from? How is this reproducible? Growing cells on an agar plate is not what I am talking about. I am talking about generating a biological cell. If we don't want to tackle or understand how life happened claiming Cell Theory would be a easy way to skirt the issue.

Well reasoned or not this is still an educated presumption no matter what powers of deduction used or how widely accepted or taught. As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis... From first hand experience a theory is only a theory until it can be reproduced then it becomes a scientific theory even if we don't fully understand why it works... How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.

Warm regards, GBTG (close but no cigar on the acronym)   

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171101160756.htm

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well reasoned or not this is still an educated presumption no matter what powers of deduction used or how widely accepted or taught. As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis... From first hand experience a theory is only a theory until it can be reproduced then it becomes a scientific theory even if we don't fully understand why it works... How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.

Who the fuck said you get to make up the rules?

[Mike Cl]

GBTG, who gives a shit what those four letters mean?  You do seem to be a bit of a smug asshole, 'setting' us up with some sort of test that only you know the rules for.  If you have a legitimate question then tell us what that is.  Guessing games are okay in a person to person social setting; but not on this board.  If you want to play a game why not just say that?   Your real goal seems to be to come onto an atheist board and see how riled up you can make your playthings.  And then fairly soon you will simply vanish.  You smugly think your 'beliefs' are based on real facts and are therefore superior to us heathens.  I've known many, many like you.  And you are simply tedious.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

GBTG, who gives a shit what those four letters mean?  You do seem to be a bit of a smug asshole, 'setting' us up with some sort of test that only you know the rules for.  If you have a legitimate question then tell us what that is.  Guessing games are okay in a person to person social setting; but not on this board.  If you want to play a game why not just say that?   Your real goal seems to be to come onto an atheist board and see how riled up you can make your playthings.  And then fairly soon you will simply vanish.  You smugly think your 'beliefs' are based on real facts and are therefore superior to us heathens.  I've known many, many like you.  And you are simply tedious.

"Stair-stepping" is a Jesuit trick. Attorney's use it a lot. You try to erode the other person's position rather than prove your own. Dishonest, but hey, that's the religious for you.

[Jason78]

Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory?

Buy a damn microscope.   Come back after you've learned how to use the instrument.

[Blackleaf]

How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.

The only people who ask this question are the ones who don't know anything about how science works. Before theories, there are hypotheses, which are tested by research. When the body of research becomes big enough, a theory can be formed to attempt to explain research as simply and accurately as possible. Theories do not become facts, they become models for how to understand the universe. When it comes to theories like evolution, the word "theory" doesn't mean that it's unconfirmed or unsubstantiated. Quite the opposite, predictions were made, and some of those predictions were confirmed by evidence in Darwin's lifetime. The theory of evolution is as close to a fact as you can get, and it has no competition.

[sdelsolray]

...
Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory? Specifically if all cells must come from a previous cell, which cannot be spontaneously generated, where did the first cell come from? How is this reproducible? Growing cells on an agar plate is not what I am talking about. I am talking about generating a biological cell. If we don't want to tackle or understand how life happened claiming Cell Theory would be a easy way to skirt the issue.
...

Cell Theory does not deal with the first origin of the cell.  It involves explanations and predictions concerning living organisms after cells first arose on this planet.  Your attempt to inject biogenesis or abiogenesis speculations or hypotheses into Cell Theory is misplaced.

In addition, Cell Theory, first formulated in the 19th century, has been adjusted and modified since then.  Perhaps you should study it more than you have in the past.

Indeed, it is quite possible that humans will eventually design and form a cell from its component chemistry.  If that occurs, the formation of those designed cells will obviously be excluded from Cell Theory, but those cells' offspring will not.

...
As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis...
...

You may wish to use the word "hypotheses" instead of "theories" in the future.  It will make your communication more accurate and less likely to fall into semantic confusion.

...
How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact?
...

Scientific theories do not become facts.


The ToR is not a fact.

[GBTG]

Thank you all for the clarifications thus far. I want to apologize as I made a poor assumption in my earlier posts, is regard to what we might have in common. I incorrectly jumped right into the math pool with statistics or probability. Through our posts thus far can we agree on the following:

A hypothesis is made

A theory can be derived from this hypothesis

Scientific theories are testable and repeatable (testable typically means quantifiable in some understood measure, time, weight, volume, etc.) 

Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.

Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?

Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.

Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.

Is this an acceptable starting point?

Regards, GBTG

[Hydra009]

Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.

Ah, the well-respected Goddidit theory.  Stay scientific, Jerry.

Abiogenesis (Athiest belief)

By that logic, the Big Bang is a Jesuit theory.

[Mike Cl]

Thank you all for the clarifications thus far. I want to apologize as I made a poor assumption in my earlier posts, is regard to what we might have in common. I incorrectly jumped right into the math pool with statistics or probability. Through our posts thus far can we agree on the following:

A hypothesis is made

A theory can be derived from this hypothesis

Scientific theories are testable and repeatable (testable typically means quantifiable in some understood measure, time, weight, volume, etc.) 

Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.

Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?

Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.

Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.

Is this an acceptable starting point?

Regards, GBTG

Is this an acceptable starting point?  No, not really.  So, you want to have a group discussion?  How is that supposed to work?  You vs us?  Well, 'us' is not a monolithic unit.  We are all individuals--unlike christians--and don't have collective agreement on anything, other than we agree that god(s) don't exist. 

You think Genesis is a reliable document to base the study of biology--or anything-- else on?  Really?  Sorry, misused a word 'think'?  It appears you actually believe Genesis has any basis in fact.  You don't really appear to think much--you seem to rely on your 'beliefs' to guide you.  Okay.  I don't do that.  I don't have any beliefs.  I make decisions based on facts and not 'beliefs'.  So, as an atheist, do not tell me about 'beliefs'--I don't have any.

And Genesis is a fiction--Chapt. one is a different account of creation that Chapt. 2.  They do not agree.  But with your beliefs you can make them agree.  Yeah--sure.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He just wants to lecture us. He gets Heaven Points for trying to convert the heathens.

[Simon Moon]

Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.

Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?

Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.

Why would an omnipotent god need 'proper conditions' to create life?

Wouldn't such a being be able to create life under any conditions?

'Proper conditions' are needed for life to arrise naturally (which is where the evidence points). The idea that life arose under 'proper conditions' points away from a deity being necessary.

Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.

Abiogenesis is not an 'atheist belief'. It s scientific hypothesis. Atheism has not tenants or dogman on the origins of life. Just that there is insufficient evidence to accept the premise that a god is responsible.