Origin of life

[catfishjim]

Valid testing would involve the proper use of mathematics correlating its target date with its current position. Obviously hyptheses concerning future events could be verified directly when the time came, but until that time the speculation would involve indirect investigation.

So if the capacity to test is not yet available, then you just have to wait it out - but the parts of the hypothesis that are supported by observation can be viewed as workable.

Have you read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?" (Very cool book.)
There's a place where the son keeps telling his (scientist) father about a friend whose grandmother firmly believes in ghosts. The father always says, "No there's no such thing as ghosts," until the son mentions that the grandmother is a Native American. Then the father says, "Oh, well, in that case, of course there are ghosts." Because "ghosts" are her "working hypothesis" for describing observable phenomena, such as wind, gravity, etc. Her interpretation anthropomorphizes these forces, something we view as primitive, but for her purposes, it works.

[biotchr]

Wind and gravity can be tested scientifically without the connection to anything that "creates" them. Both phenomena give emperical evidence allowing us to study the natural mechanisms that cause them. Evolution is not so due to its insistence on a creative force that breaks the rules of science. A force that "creates" is DIFFERENT than a force that transfers energy or attracts.

As for an "interpretation" of the creative forces behind creation or evolution, that is exactly the problematic outcomes of studying origins of life and the species using science. Creationists and evolutionists are guilty of this.

[alextemplet]

I still don't quite get it. Biotchr, you have yet to present a legitimate, scientific objection to evolution. Just because you claim it's all biased doesn't mean a thing, and just saying "All of it," accomplishes little. Give us a list of scientific objections, like Springer used to do when he wasn't talking about a designer. If you really think it's biased, then please give us a scientific objection, and then claim that we're biased for not believing it. That might not be completely right, but it's a lot better than saying we're biased and just leaving it at that.

[AstusAleator]

when I said read the origins thread I meant the Unsolved Questions thread. Please refer to that thread for any further conversations w/me biotchr.

[abigenesis_99]

My biology teacher recently showed us a video of evolution.
It suddenly showed one day when DNA existed, and replicated itself, gained a membrane and lived on.
How could something so complex and alive form from chemicals.
I don't understand it.
I would like some help, so thanks in advance.

Abiogenesis is completely without scientific basis. There is no possible way that matter can evolve into life, regardless of the amount of time you alot. Evolutionists have tried to "divorce" themselves from abiogenesis because they know it's impossible.

[alextemplet]

A repost, interesting . . .

[Khaiy]

Posted twice, but without any real evidence either time...

[damien james]

I'm not an expert, but I've read through some of this thread and I haven't seen anything to help clear up what's so great about ID. I heard on the news that in Kansas they'll be teaching it in the classrooms, and I've read about some of the theories like irreducible complexity (sp?) and stuff, but it all seems so subjective.

Like the whole thing about the bacterial flagellum and stuff. I'm a microbio major and we had almost a whole month about precursors to the flagellum, how the little parts that make it up were used for different things like transferring dna and spreading pathogens and stuff, and that's in bacteria that still EXIST! But I read in the newspaper about the bacterial flagellum having to be produced all at once to work in an article about ID. Why?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what's so great about it. Sounds like a bunch of crap.

[AstusAleator]

Certain groups of people feel their beliefs are being challenged and that the "other side" is winning. They feel that their beliefs should be taught alongside scientific theory, in order to give students "perspective".
The Catholic Church has officially renounced ID as science, and I hope the other denominations will follow suit. Personally I don't have a problem with a science teacher spending a period talking about how it's entirely possible that the earth was created in one way or another. It is, after all, part of the scientific method to consider all possibilities. However, to have these teachers make entire curricula on ID and call it science, is something else entirely.
This isn't the first time that science has tread upon the toes of beliefs and cultural ideals, nor will it be the last.