Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I'd like to get off the religious topic soon and return to pure science, but first I'd like an opportunity to answer Springer's questions about faith. I know I hate it when my questions go unanswered, and I don't want to cause anyone else the indignity of being ignored.
I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. God may or may not have intervened in the evolutionary process, but I still think it's possible for Him to do that in a way that more or less equals natural selection. For example, He could change the environment (such as by sending an asteroid) to cause certain organisms (dinosaurs, in this example) to be "naturally selected" and thereby give other organisms (mammals, in this example) a chance to evolve into something special (humans, in this example). With or without divine influence, that's still pretty much the same as natural selection, at least from a scientific perspective.
I believe I've already said something similar to this, but I'll say it again. To me, the extreme precision in which the universe is balanced to support life (every major force is at exactly the right strength, the earth is the perfect distance from the sun, the atmosphere contains exactly the right amount of oxygen, etc.) confirms God's hand in nature. I see evolution as just more evidence of God; for example, if any small step in the four billion year story had been different, we might not exist. And what could've caused the Big Bang? God, if you ask me. So yes, I also see nature as proof of a supreme being. If I may be excused for quoting scripture, I believe very strongly that "All creation reflects the glory of God."
I think I undestand your point now, and it certainly seems to be a compelling one. My only response shall be to explain my own personal thoughts on the matter. I believe that, yes, God could've personally directed every single step in the evolutionary process. I also believe that God designed the universe in such a way that it could run itself, so if He wanted to He could've just stepped aside and let life evolve on its own, through purely random factors. I personally don't know the mind of God, so I'll leave it up to the reader to decide how God chose to do this.
I disagree. I see natural selection as being the carpenter; the hammer is the traits and genes that it works with. The newly-evolved organism is the building; God is the foreman who directs everything.
That seems to be what I thought ID is, trying to claim that God is necessary for life to be as it is, but without stating who or what God is or exactly how He created. In other words, it's creationism with God taken out of it.
I hope that puts religion aside, but if not I'll still be happy to entertain your questions. Getting back to science, I'd like to have a discussion about some major problems with evolution, and I also want to do something that no one else has yet quite suggested. Let's give ID legitimacy as science, so that we can test it and validate or falsify it in a scientific manner. Springer, gives an hypothesis or two based on ID that we can test. If ID passes the test of experimentation, then I'll gladly concede this debate to you. If not, I hope we'll be able to agree that ID isn't legit science.
#2 Total Post Count
Research this topic. I think you will quickly find that abiogenesis is as religious as any other religion in that it is proliferated by a body of believers and is held to with much faith. Some on this forum referred to abiogenesis as a scientific theory, however, it is not. It is hardly a hypothesis. I think you ought to ask your teacher why this religion is allowed in your classroom and others are not!
This has already been addressed (though obviously not resolved). Rather than making short controversial statements and telling everyone to "do the research", present research that supports your argument. Otherwise you can expect to recieve no meaningful or productive responses.
Let me save everybody the time and wasted argument space:
respondant: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah you're wrong
biotchr: blah blah blah blah blah blah i'm right, you're wrong.
respondant: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, nu uh.
some other respondant: blah blah blah blah blah what he said.
biotrch: blah blah blah blah blah, i'm right, you're wrong.
respondant: blah blah blah blah blah, no you're just wrong.
and on and on.
I hope this has been a truly meaningful and important addition to this thread. Sure it's immature, but really if you go back over this thread, this is a recognizable pattern... sadly.
I assumed the inquiring subject was still in school and being a Biology teacher I was giving good advice, hence "do your homework!". And you pretty much summed up the scientific validity of abiogenesis with "blah blah blah blah". I have no scientific evidence to support my belief in the origin of life because there is NONE. Actually biology embarrasses itself with it's explanation of any origin including that of species. Seems like biology would do better to stick with the "study of life" including the species instead of studying the "origins of life" and the species.
Any one here Aware about Chemical Evolution. Molecule Level Natural Selection.
I have read about Polycation, polyanion(preator),hydrated electron etc.
These are imp. to define Evolution.
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org
Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".
But with the communistic approach to origins scientists, whether right or wrong, could care a less about offending you or anyone else, even our young. Does this bother you?
I apologize for my last post, I was slightly intoxicated. *blushes*
Biotchr, I think I understand your frustration, please try to understand mine. You feel that a theory with little to no substantiating evidence is being force-fed to teenagers. I know that's what you feel, but how much in-depth research have you actually done on the topic? I personally would love to learn the nitty-gritty science and mathematics that is behind this. And, if the science is over my head, then I would love to have one of the phDs that posts on this forum to help give us a run-down.
Nothing would please me more than to get to the bottom of these issues, scientifically.
So here's my suggestion:
Lets start scrutinizing issues scientifically in this thread, and leave the "who's right who's wrong metaphysical philosophical debates out of it.
OR, we can have the mods rename this thread to "Endless Pointless Arguments Having Little or Nothing To Do With Science" and then make new threads for each of the issues we've almost talked about in this thread.
I am not a PHD. I teach high-school biology. I have researched evolution on both sides and I reject the theory as factual. However, unlike my many creationists friends I believe evolution should be taught in schools but without the factuality claims. My creationists friends get mad at me for that, but that is their prerogative. As for "scrutinizing issues scientifically" pertaining to evolution, well, that is simply impossible. Origins (abiogenesis AND evolution) are connected to the metaphysical which is why they are unable to be studied scientifically. All ideas on origins, whether of species or life, is dependent upon metphysical presence. Evolutionists just do a good job covering their metaphysical subject up calling "her" "Nature" or the "Environment" and calling "her" blind, unconscious, undirected, lazy (unmotivated) or what I like to call the "stupid"natural. Our belief in origins is influenced by what we think about the creator, whose presence is demanded, whether it be supernatural or stupidnatural. Other areas (non-origin based) of scientific inquiry have no such dependency and can be studied objectively without bias.
Your insistence on analyzing "scientific" "facts" plays right into an evolutionist's open arms as his/her "scientific" "facts" (which seem to change?) are his/her biased evidences such as the Bible is the creationist's "facts". By the way in order to study evolution one assumes it passes the scientific method which is a fact that I openly challenge. That is a topic I would be glad to talk about.
A scientific hypothesis is a proposal that can be tested and falsified. Using the scientific method hypotheses can then be tested using controllable experimental methods which are repeatable. In doing so this method has historically brought about many successful theories in explaining natural phenomena. The thing to remember is that phenomena do not necessarily have to be visible. We may not be able to "witness" it directly as you alluded to, however, the scientific process can successfully uncover many answers indirectly using inference, math, logic, and commuicable findings. Science does not seek to "prove" as you asked but to support a hypothesis until further findings support or deny its accuracy. This was a quick run-down of basic philosophy of science. I may of made some mistakes because I ran through it so quickly.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests