GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
To deny Evolution after the literally countless observations, experiments, and immense scrutiny and discoveries, any one of which could have "thrown the whole thing out the window" but instead support and expand on it, is just as foolish as denying the Earth revolves around the Sun or that a super massive black hole resides at the center of our Galaxy and indeed most galaxies. Agnosticism about the beginning of life is sheer stubbornness and the denial that anything can be known unless one sees it with one's own eyes. It totally denies the concept and efficacy of abstraction and probability. Is it more likely that life began because that's what organic components do under certain conditions that include liquid water as a medium, or because of The Word of some supernatural being?
To deny Evolution after the literally countless observations, experiments, and immense scrutiny and discoveries, any one of which could have "thrown the whole thing out the window"
What a (grossly) deceiving statement.
The scientific method is useless for "proving the past". For that, forensic evidence is needed (and we have very little compared to what we should have). You cannot "disprove" nor "prove" the deceptive theory, because it relies entirely on speculation, not true science. Therefore, finding something to "throw the whole thing out the window" is a red herring.
Further, "evolution" is an umbrella term that covers a large number of ideas. There is no one thing called "evolution", which makes your statement all the more meaningless. Of course, there are some ideas that fall under the evolution umbrella which are obvious and true - like environmental adaptation - but those things do not collectively define evolution.
"Literally countless" is another red herring (and an inaccurate one at that). The flat earth theory was accepted for many centuries before being disproved. Evolution is an infant theory by comparison, and will eventually suffer the same fate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
Is it more likely that life began because that's what organic components do under certain conditions
HAHAHAHA!!! Tell me - when has anyone, at any time, created life under ANY conditions? Obviously, if this happened eons ago "by accident", we should be able to reproduce a similar event in the laboratory. Wild, unfounded speculation (again), as you have NOTHING to support such a claim!
Further, "organic components" are, by definition, derived from life and did not exist before life - catch 22. For evolution to work, life must have been created from inorganic components.
This thread is addictive! There's been a lot of rhetoric that I consider to be nonsense, or makes no sense (and I'm not going to look for quotes to back-up my opinion), but I can't keep away ......... sad or what?
Alberich, there's no wit; it's far too serious for humour :-)
Last edited by Celtic Yokel; 06-19-2016 at 01:50 PM.
Reason: corrections
Further, "organic components" are, by definition, derived from life and did not exist before life - catch 22.
I was under the impression that "organic components" means things composed of organic compounds.
Quote:
An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. For historical reasons discussed below, a few types of carbon-containing compounds, such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (such as CO and CO2), and cyanides are considered inorganic.[1] The distinction between organic and inorganic carbon compounds, while "useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry... is somewhat arbitrary".[2]
The scientific method is useless for "proving the past". For that, forensic evidence is needed (and we have very little compared to what we should have). You cannot "disprove" nor "prove" the deceptive theory, because it relies entirely on speculation, not true science. Therefore, finding something to "throw the whole thing out the window" is a red herring.
Further, "evolution" is an umbrella term that covers a large number of ideas. There is no one thing called "evolution", which makes your statement all the more meaningless. Of course, there are some ideas that fall under the evolution umbrella which are obvious and true - like environmental adaptation - but those things do not collectively define evolution.
"Literally countless" is another red herring (and an inaccurate one at that). The flat earth theory was accepted for many centuries before being disproved. Evolution is an infant theory by comparison, and will eventually suffer the same fate.
HAHAHAHA!!! Tell me - when has anyone, at any time, created life under ANY conditions? Obviously, if this happened eons ago "by accident", we should be able to reproduce a similar event in the laboratory. Wild, unfounded speculation (again), as you have NOTHING to support such a claim!
Further, "organic components" are, by definition, derived from life and did not exist before life - catch 22. For evolution to work, life must have been created from inorganic components.
Actually, evolution just started as a theory long ago and has been prooven by now.. The red herring is saying that it tries to proove the past since evolution is not just about yesterday, but it's about a biological process that will forever be valid (thus it can be validaded by a number of scientific methods, some of which are pretty new -- like DNA science) ... What you are thinking about is just the evolution timeline (which still is not speculation, rather intelligent assumptions based on existing evidences)...
Also, your comparation with the "flat earth" theory is not valid. That theory was not supported by any real facts, just by the inability of people to perceive a space in which their straight road was actually a bit rounded. The "flat earth" theory is a good comparation to the "God created Earth" theory where people are unable to perceive that life and, specially, human life is just the result of a million years of biological changes that may just very well started from almost nothing.
The problem here is that while life on Earth might have started from "nothing" here or might have started from compounds brought by asteroids hitting the Earth or even started as alien experimentation (really, there is no ideea too absurd and they all are just theories).. Either ways there are still questions about how initial life has started and how the universe was created... This is where our brains try to pick the easiest way out and simply say "God created it"... I do belive that if we don't become extint in the meantime, we will find the answers to those questions and then they'll seem as easy to accept and as logical as it is today to accept the Earth is round..
Can someone explain how each generation gets smarter (not wiser until dawn) as we get new tech, if not through evolution?
Who says we get "smarter"? We acquire more accumulated "knowledge" over time - that has nothing to do with intelligence. We are actually getting "dumber" over the long term.
I was under the impression that "organic components" means things composed of organic compounds.
Quote:
ORGANIC:
1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.
2. characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms :
organic remains found in rocks.
3. of or relating to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus.
4. of, relating to, or affecting living tissue:
organic pathology.
Note that science has changed its definition of the term "organic" several times - the most recent one rather arbitrarily includes anything that is carbon-based. Convenient, isn't it? Doesn't change my original assertion, however.
Who says we get "smarter"? We acquire more accumulated "knowledge" over time - that has nothing to do with intelligence. We are actually getting "dumber" over the long term.
O ye, of little faith; accumulated "knowledge is smarter, with faster guns? Wouldn't you agree!
Last edited by jamison20000e; 06-19-2016 at 08:23 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.