Did you read anything about where I claimed to be a scientist? No, you did not. It does not require a degree in science for anyone to be able to think independently, and that has been the entire object of my posts in this thread. I never told anyone what to think or believe, but only to at least think about the matter beyond simply citing scientific quotes. Big Dave said that scientific means of research is empiracal and irrefutable, but at best, that could only be said of the results of their actual experiments, not the conclusions that they extrapolate from them. In this area of knowledge, that amounts to about 10% facts, and 90% speculation. Even the facts are subject to change, so I would not even consider them irrefutable. But since you obviously feel comfortable putting your faith in this system, why would I want to discourage you?

Let's see... you said "Therefore, I shall repeat...evolution and the origin of life is simply two sides of the same coin." This is what I referred to as a "glib statement". You then said "But, unless each of you determine for yourselves the validity of this kind of scientific output, instead of allowing science to tell you what to believe, neither you or science will ever begin to fathom any portion of the truth. Don't expect me to tell you what the truth is, because I only know part of it, and that part is what makes it obvious that theories such as these are what I said in the first place...daydreams, or perhaps more aptly daymares."

All that was asked of you is that you back up your statement with some kind of explanation, but instead you rambled on about how we need to investigate for ourselves.

No, what Big Dave said was that "Science has real empirical (look it up, don't ask) and irrefutable evidence to back it up." In this sentence, the adjective "irrefutable" is modifying the noun "evidence". He never said that the conclusions extrapolated from experiments are irrefutable.

Now that we've all agreed on what science is, would you care to explain why you believe evolution and the origin of life to be two sides of the same coin?

Not unless you would care to pickup the subject where MRiGnS dropped it. I am not into spending alot of time expounding on any subject, only to have what I have said to be blown off lump sum. That is what typicaly happens in discussions such as this. Therefore, I shall only proceed one step at a time.

seekermeister: It's not enough to bash a theory. In order to "refute" it, you actually need to replace it with something better. I am curious what theory or theories you have up your sleeve that does a better job than the ones presented.

Although it is obvious that I disagree with these theories, I am not aware that I bashed them at any time. I posed a question that no one has taken on the challenge to answer. The only cure for curiousity is to scratch it, not kill the cat.

Are you talking about your question about whether or not both the origin of life and evolution involve chemical reactions? I'll take on the challenge: yes. Of course it does. Pretty damn near every process in the world involves chemical reactions.

Calling various theories "daymares" is not bashing them?

Okay, good. That was not my first question that I gave to Big Dave, but it is still a starting point.

Since we agree that chemical reactions are at the center of the subject...at least in terms of the physical aspects of life, it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a similar agreement that any division of this process is merely a convenient manner to focus on one stage in the process. That division is only useful for scientific purposes, because either division would be totally meaningless without the other. Therefore, they are two sides of the same coin. You may not consider that up to scientific standards, but logic began before science was even thought of, and will continue long after it is dead. You don't think that science will ever die? That is a subject all to it's self, so I don't intend to explain that now.

Since this was not my original question, I'm still waiting on a response from somebody.

Sorry, I still can't find a post where you asked a question to Big Dave, unless you're counting the request to "explain the theory of evolution step by step", which he did.

I will still have to disagree with you. Like I said, everything is a chemical reaction. When you fry an egg, that's a chemical reaction. Would you say that separating egg-frying from the origin of life is just meaningless division?

The question of the origin of life and evolution are entirely separate. Evolution attempts to explain how life changes from one state to another, and completely ignores how the first state got there in the first place.

I'll make this short and to the point. Hopefully you'll be able to comprehend:

If you think I plagiarised my post, can you please provide a link to the page on the Internet I copied and pasted it from? I'll save you some time right now: you won't be able to find it.

Thank you.

::bows::

You're trying (unsuccessfully) to argue scientific principles. By loose definition, that does make you a (bad) scientist.

You're able to think neither independently nor objectively. You're taking what you heard from Bible class and bringing it straight into this thread.

Look, if you're going to use scientific words, please spell them correctly. It's "empirical."

Bollocks.

Theories are just that - theories. They can be tested with experiments. If the results of a particular experiment agree with the theory, that theory is strengthened. If the results and the theory conflict, the theory is modified to fit and explain the new-found results.

What's the speed of light?

This: 299,792,458 m s^-1

It's a universal constant. It will never change.

Science does not involve faith. It never involves faith. It is a purely objective system.

However, your blessed religion relies solely on faith. Tell me, have you ever seen God? No, I thought not. You rely solely on faith, and hope that God really is there. You invest all of your faith on one book.

Now, I shall repeat myself. This is what is expect of you:

When can I expect the response I asked for nearly ten posts ago?

Big Dave,

With your attitude...you can expect a response on Judgement Day. Your comments do not deserve any further response at this time.

Charbucks,
Not even close. What I expected was a comprehensive structure of evidence that would support the theory so that when one piece was removed, that the entire structure wouldn't cave in like a house of cards.

In other words, you don't have a clue. Why didn't you just say that, instead of trying to sound holier-than-thou?

That's not how critique works. It's your turn to offer a theory (in equal detail). Then we can compare the *two* theories.

As it is now, you've positioned yourself as a sniper. You're hiding in a little cubby-hole, waiting to shoot at anything that appears. This is not an honest technique.

There is a real debate between Big Dave and Seeker here isn't it.

Seekermeister. You really want to know the scientific view of the origin of life do you. I can answer that with my own words and knowledge but I really do not know if you can comprehend it, or have the guts to take it.

You know living objects is different from unliving objects in only one point. Living objects are more complex mechanisms. Simply put unliving objects are like tools and living objects are machines and that is all.

Merely everything happens due to organizations of atomic (subatomic) particles and fields(by the way these are not fields where people grow corn. If you want to know more about it read An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory Micheal E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder, but to comprehend this you will have to read many other books and published articles for understanding science (by the way this is only for physics). I can send you a reference of about 40 books and nearly a hundred articles ). everything is in interaction with eachother and everything decays (everything falls prey to entropy). Living beings are cursed somehow to view all these progresses. You do not even think for yourself it just happens, it seems as though you are thinking but actually it is only a series of preocesses and you comprehend it as such , everything around you just happens, you have the ability to observe and understand the underlying mechanism and thats it. No more no less. So being alive does not make you special anyway.

And obviously complex systems originate from simpler systems. Now I made a mistake telling you about entropy because you will say that if everything decays then how complex systems occur. Well you did not get me there.Total Entropy of a closed system increases over time. Every word in this last sentence bears importance. Universe is the closed system. If a bunch of objects goes under a series of processes to make a complex system. The total entropy of all those things going under that process decreases. In the macro level it seems more organized but it isn't in the micro level. So no your counterpoint is wrong. (I guessed you will counterpoint me on this because everyone who has not studied sciences does)

Anyway if what I state is not satisfactory to you, then you should read everything that I offer to you. And you should understand and work on them. You cannot ask people to share their hard earned wisdom and knowledge with you so that you can counter-point them with a minute of knowledge on the area they are talking about. Also people have no time for that. I myself prefer to share my knowledge with hardworking people who are willing to learn and not live their lives (observation periods)
in vain; rather than converting an unwilling lazy guy like you.

By the way thought that you can offer me to read the Bible. Or Bibles. I read many Holy Books. And you know many of the people I live with did too. From where we stand we eat Holy Books for breakfast.

And I do support points by Big Dave.

By The way

Do you really think that science is thought of by someone. "Oh, guys come on look what I have thought of; It is called science and we will try to explain what is going on in our world with it."

No science is not thought up nor will it die. As long as there is existence science will be.

And Logic BEGAN???? Interesting "Oh, guys I am the one who found science now I made a machine called Logic. With it we can be reasonable." COME ON

All of you have good days.

The biggest reason for me not to believe in God.. is not because I claim to understand nature... it is because I understand people. Even religion itself is evidence of evolution. Look at ancient religions... The sun was worshiped.. the moon was worshiped... We worshiped things for which we could not understand and could not explain. Over time the only religions that could adapt, and stay with us were ones that still relied on those concepts. So once we found out what the sun was.. BAM, no more sun god. Once we found out what the moon was, BAM no more moon god. Now... we have the religion of death. Christianity and most others are religions of death.. and I call them that because the uncertainty they play upon is what happens after death.. which is pretty much impossible to know. As you can see it is fixed firmly in the evolutionary cycle.. and it will probably stay until people evolve more and become too smart for religion.

All of our emotions.. everything about us helps us survive. We have two legs so we can walk. This helps us to survive because we can move. We feel pain so that we know something is hurting us.. that it is bad and for us to stay away. Every emotion we have is the result of survival... which is the result of evolution. In a world of no survival (like heaven for instance) these things would be useless. We would feel nothing. Heaven doesn't make sense... for that reason and others. The concept of heaven is probably the most obviously man made thing of all. Who doesn't want to live for ever in eternity and be happy? That is part of our surviving remember?