Evolution/Religion (Origins of Life) [Was: Can we calm down in this section please?]

Apollo20 · 15th August 2007, 12:23 PM

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

T.A.M. · 15th August 2007, 12:36 PM

Where does the Theory of Evolution actually try to tackle the origin of life???

TAM

rwguinn · 15th August 2007, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.

Just as NIST had its charter to investigate the cause of collapse, not the actual collapse and post-collapse of the towers, Evolution does NOT, repeat, does NOT even attempt to address origins of life. It does address what happens to that life, once formed, over eons of environmental changes and other factors...
Why misrepresent stuff when you should know better? Do you not feel any duty to squelch fuzzy thinking?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

Apollo20 · 15th August 2007, 01:06 PM

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....

T.A.M. · 15th August 2007, 01:12 PM

We are talking strictly about the theory.

Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life.

Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup.

TAM

Spins · 15th August 2007, 01:20 PM

The "origin of life" is essentially how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life, biological evolution does not depend on understanding how life began. Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared, from the common ancestor or ancestral gene pool onwards.

The origin of life is a very interesting topic and nobody truly knows how it began, for example recently there was a discovery of inorganic dust with life-like qualities...

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html

rwguinn · 15th August 2007, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

We are talking strictly about the theory.

Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life.

Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup.

TAM

Absorootly!
One must separate the "Theory" (supported by scientific observation and correlation) as opposed to "Theorists" who may be looney as the day is long.
We see much of the latter in regard to 9/11 (or 11/9)

Apollo20 · 15th August 2007, 01:30 PM

Spins:

You claim that: "Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared". Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life.

T.A.M. · 15th August 2007, 01:35 PM

No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED.

Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth.

TAM

~enigma~ · 15th August 2007, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....

Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution.

~enigma~ · 15th August 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED.

Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth.

TAM

Please guys pay attention to the new rules. Evolution belongs in a different forum.

T.A.M. · 15th August 2007, 01:43 PM

ok...I am done with it...I was merely trying to clarify...makes no odds to me as I am a firm believer in the theory. As to the origin of life, the jury is still out, and so am I.

TAM

Spins · 15th August 2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life.

These are incredibly difficult questions to answer scientifically, especially that last one, all we can do is speculate about life's origin at the moment.

On the other hand I'm perfectly comfortable with the theory of evolution, in fact you can see it happen, for example I thought this was an interesting observation...

As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller

Anyways I'd better stop talking about evolution before ~enigma~ sends me to the sin bin.

rwguinn · 15th August 2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution.

Actually, the discussion is appropriate here.
It shows how people who should know better, who are involved in science, and who know the scientific method as it pertains to their field, can-and do- forget all about it when professing expertise in other fields.
They "assume", from "the popular press", or from people with axes to grind, or from the totally misinformed, or liars out to make a buck, that "this is the troof" about _______ (insert favorite misrepresented theory here)--simply because one cannot read everything there is.It is difficult enough keeping up with one field, however narrow it may bee--and something as diverse as evolution, too? Not sure it can be done...
This is why we are posting in the CT forum, right? To counter the misinformed, folks with axes to grind, liars, etc?

~enigma~ · 15th August 2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Actually, the discussion is appropriate here.

According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread.

rwguinn · 15th August 2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread.

Yawssa massa.

~enigma~ · 15th August 2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Yawssa massa.

Spins · 15th August 2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.

No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job.

Taxi for ~enigma~ please.

Civilized Worm · 15th August 2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.

We've already explained to you how the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin so stop with the strawmen. I have already stated that I don't consider you a pseudoscientist. Nevertheless you do endorse pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

Quote:

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

So? Newton lived in the 17th century, and given how ahead of his time he was in other respects I think we can forgive him for the alchemy. You on the other hand should know better.

~enigma~ · 15th August 2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Spins

No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job.

Taxi for ~enigma~ please.

Oh it drifted and it appeared that this thread was going to take a swerve into evolution land. That according to rule 11 is just as bad as cat pictures and recepies.

jmercer · 15th August 2007, 04:58 PM

This derail was indeed in opposition to Rule 11 under the new Membership Agreement; I have accordingly split it off into Science if you wish to continue pursuing it.

Posted By:jmercer

Civilized Worm · 15th August 2007, 05:10 PM

I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here.

Apollo20 · 15th August 2007, 06:19 PM

Civilized Worm:

Wrong!

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...

rwguinn · 15th August 2007, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here.

Randi's million is still safe. Or did you forget to turn you precog on?

Cuddles · 16th August 2007, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...

Actually, alchemy isn't really misunderstood at all. It's one of the biggest branches of science and has made huge differences to almost every part of our lives. Of course, we call it chemistry these days.

JoeEllison · 16th August 2007, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

So he was a one in a million genius... and dead wrong. So, if HE could be wrong, what does that say about you?

Dumbledore · 16th August 2007, 12:19 PM

I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life, I think these two subjects are coupled together to give a more complete understanding of the overall subject of life. When I took biology the origins of life had its own beginning chapter, evolution was not introduced till several chapters latter. The are separate subjects, but they are also complementary in understand life in general.

Gord_in_Toronto · 16th August 2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life,

<<SNIP>>

Actually Darwin's The Origin Of Species contains nothing about Abiogenesis.

Ladewig · 16th August 2007, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....

Doesn't that logic lead to the conclusion that religion is part of evolution because there is a chapter on religion in a book on evolution?

Ladewig · 16th August 2007, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by jmercer

This derail was indeed in opposition to Rule 11 under the new Membership Agreement; I have accordingly split it off into Science if you wish to continue pursuing it.

Posted By:jmercer

Is there an easy way to find the original thread if one is looking at the split from a thread?

ETA: nevermind. the search function was easier than I expected it to be.

Civilized Worm · 18th August 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Civilized Worm:

Wrong!

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...

Wow, you've just surpassed yourself!

qayak · 18th August 2007, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

At first I thought you were serious!

becomingagodo · 19th August 2007, 05:08 PM

Einstein theory of gravity doesn't explain quantum mechanics

Einstein was wrong, and gravity does not exist. Also on topic how can animals move, doesn't the arrow paradox disprove motion. The animal has to travel half it's length and then another half e.t.c. to get to the final point, this is logically impossible. So we don't move.

Quote:

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

Oh yeah, Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. So he is wrong. Plus their is alot of critizism of Newton. He was also gay, I'm assuming you have something against gays being a creationist.

15th August 2007, 12:23 PM	#1
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	Evolution/Religion (Origins of Life) [Was: Can we calm down in this section please?] Cuddles: Religion is not a theory. Civilized Worm: I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist. Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

15th August 2007, 12:58 PM	#3
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,439	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Cuddles: Religion is not a theory. Civilized Worm: I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist. Just as NIST had its charter to investigate the cause of collapse, not the actual collapse and post-collapse of the towers, Evolution does NOT, repeat, does NOT even attempt to address origins of life. It does address what happens to that life, once formed, over eons of environmental changes and other factors... Why misrepresent stuff when you should know better? Do you not feel any duty to squelch fuzzy thinking? Originally Posted by Apollo20 Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

15th August 2007, 01:06 PM	#4
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	TAM: What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells? My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record". Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

15th August 2007, 01:20 PM	#6
Spins Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 652	The "origin of life" is essentially how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life, biological evolution does not depend on understanding how life began. Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared, from the common ancestor or ancestral gene pool onwards. The origin of life is a very interesting topic and nobody truly knows how it began, for example recently there was a discovery of inorganic dust with life-like qualities... http://physorg.com/news105869123.html
	__________________ "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

15th August 2007, 01:25 PM	#7
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,439	Originally Posted by T.A.M. We are talking strictly about the theory. Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life. Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup. TAM Absorootly! One must separate the "Theory" (supported by scientific observation and correlation) as opposed to "Theorists" who may be looney as the day is long. We see much of the latter in regard to 9/11 (or 11/9)
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

15th August 2007, 12:36 PM	#2
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Where does the Theory of Evolution actually try to tackle the origin of life??? TAM

15th August 2007, 01:12 PM	#5
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	We are talking strictly about the theory. Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life. Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup. TAM

15th August 2007, 01:30 PM	#8
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	Spins: You claim that: "Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared". Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life.
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

15th August 2007, 01:35 PM	#9
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED. Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth. TAM

15th August 2007, 01:40 PM	#10
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Apollo20 TAM: What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells? My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record". Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life.... Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution.

15th August 2007, 01:41 PM	#11
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by T.A.M. No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED. Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth. TAM Please guys pay attention to the new rules. Evolution belongs in a different forum.

15th August 2007, 01:43 PM	#12
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	ok...I am done with it...I was merely trying to clarify...makes no odds to me as I am a firm believer in the theory. As to the origin of life, the jury is still out, and so am I. TAM

15th August 2007, 01:53 PM	#13
Spins Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life. These are incredibly difficult questions to answer scientifically, especially that last one, all we can do is speculate about life's origin at the moment. On the other hand I'm perfectly comfortable with the theory of evolution, in fact you can see it happen, for example I thought this was an interesting observation... As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller Anyways I'd better stop talking about evolution before ~enigma~ sends me to the sin bin.
	__________________ "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

15th August 2007, 01:57 PM	#14
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,439	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution. Actually, the discussion is appropriate here. It shows how people who should know better, who are involved in science, and who know the scientific method as it pertains to their field, can-and do- forget all about it when professing expertise in other fields. They "assume", from "the popular press", or from people with axes to grind, or from the totally misinformed, or liars out to make a buck, that "this is the troof" about _______ (insert favorite misrepresented theory here)--simply because one cannot read everything there is.It is difficult enough keeping up with one field, however narrow it may bee--and something as diverse as evolution, too? Not sure it can be done... This is why we are posting in the CT forum, right? To counter the misinformed, folks with axes to grind, liars, etc?
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

15th August 2007, 02:01 PM	#15
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by rwguinn Actually, the discussion is appropriate here. According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread.

15th August 2007, 02:12 PM	#16
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,439	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread. Yawssa massa.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

15th August 2007, 02:15 PM	#17
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by rwguinn Yawssa massa.

15th August 2007, 02:17 PM	#18
Spins Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 652	Quote: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion. No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job. Taxi for ~enigma~ please.
	__________________ "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

15th August 2007, 03:47 PM	#19
Civilized Worm The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Cuddles: Religion is not a theory. Civilized Worm: I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist. We've already explained to you how the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin so stop with the strawmen. I have already stated that I don't consider you a pseudoscientist. Nevertheless you do endorse pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Quote: Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy. So? Newton lived in the 17th century, and given how ahead of his time he was in other respects I think we can forgive him for the alchemy. You on the other hand should know better.

15th August 2007, 03:53 PM	#20
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Spins No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job. Taxi for ~enigma~ please. Oh it drifted and it appeared that this thread was going to take a swerve into evolution land. That according to rule 11 is just as bad as cat pictures and recepies.

15th August 2007, 05:10 PM	#22
Civilized Worm The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 1,718	I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here.
	__________________ "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens Thanks to Kilgore Trout and PaulHoff for the animated avatar.

15th August 2007, 06:19 PM	#23
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426	Civilized Worm: Wrong! Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,426

15th August 2007, 07:06 PM	#24
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,439	Originally Posted by Civilized Worm I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here. Randi's million is still safe. Or did you forget to turn you precog on?
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

16th August 2007, 03:55 AM	#25
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,580	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates... Actually, alchemy isn't really misunderstood at all. It's one of the biggest branches of science and has made huge differences to almost every part of our lives. Of course, we call it chemistry these days.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

16th August 2007, 04:01 AM	#26
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy. So he was a one in a million genius... and dead wrong. So, if HE could be wrong, what does that say about you?

16th August 2007, 12:19 PM	#27
Dumbledore Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 347	I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life, I think these two subjects are coupled together to give a more complete understanding of the overall subject of life. When I took biology the origins of life had its own beginning chapter, evolution was not introduced till several chapters latter. The are separate subjects, but they are also complementary in understand life in general.
	__________________ "Back off man I'm a scientist!!" Ghostbusters

16th August 2007, 06:17 PM	#28
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,416	Originally Posted by Dumbledore I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life, <<SNIP>> Actually Darwin's The Origin Of Species contains nothing about Abiogenesis.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

16th August 2007, 06:45 PM	#29
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,803	Originally Posted by Apollo20 TAM: What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells? My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record". Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life.... Doesn't that logic lead to the conclusion that religion is part of evolution because there is a chapter on religion in a book on evolution?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th August 2007, 02:22 PM	#31
Civilized Worm The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Civilized Worm: Wrong! Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates... Wow, you've just surpassed yourself!
	__________________ "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens Thanks to Kilgore Trout and PaulHoff for the animated avatar.

18th August 2007, 04:51 PM	#32
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,711	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy. At first I thought you were serious!
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,711	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

19th August 2007, 05:08 PM	#33
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	Einstein theory of gravity doesn't explain quantum mechanics Einstein was wrong, and gravity does not exist. Also on topic how can animals move, doesn't the arrow paradox disprove motion. The animal has to travel half it's length and then another half e.t.c. to get to the final point, this is logically impossible. So we don't move. Quote: Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy. Oh yeah, Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. So he is wrong. Plus their is alot of critizism of Newton. He was also gay, I'm assuming you have something against gays being a creationist.
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698