Login

Join for Free!
118252 members


Origin of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Springer » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:55 pm

mithrilhack wrote:
Springer wrote:

All my answers so far have been from the assumption that science is true and reliable. Not absolutely true, but good enough for me to trust my life to it(i.e. I take the medicine that my doctor prescribes without a second thought, and I dare to drive past a nuclear powerplant).


You're ignoring a fundamental difference between a physican and a nuclear physicist as compared to an evolutionary biologist. A physician who prescribes you the wrong drug has accountability, as does the engineer designing a nuclear power plant. An erroneous conclusion in the evolutionary world is devoid of consequences. Evolutionary biology has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of science and has had no positive impact on humanity.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:35 am

Springer wrote:
Please clarify...I have no idea what you're talking about.

You're questioning how trustworthy science is, well I ask you how trustworthy are your senses and logic? Saying that scientists in 1500 are wrong is a true statement but yet leads nowhere. There is no true certainty in any of the ways of knowing. We have to use the tools we have, even with their flaws.

You are mistaken if you think that there is a consensus. There are thousands of well-credentialed scientists who have looked at the same data as evolutionists and have concluded that evolution is false.

Such as? Michael Behe has good credentials but certainly there's more than enough critiques of his works to show where the majority lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... erwhelming
See source #3 in footnotes. 350 vs 120,000. I can see where the majority is.

If you read the part on probability, you will see that he disregards probability and think there's no difficulty in overcoming odds of 10^-40.

Like, I said, I don't know what assumptions his figures are based on. But probably 10^-40 is a good enough probablilty in his context. We both don't know what the context is so we can't really say whether it's a high or low probablity. Ask him if you seek more info.

I have read a number of recent articles on abiogenesis, and there is nothing that even remotely shows that it is possible.

Your opinion, and that of other ID/creationists.

Evolution, including abiogenesis cannot be falsified, the way it is argued. It has been proclaimed as fact, any now all science has to do is find the mechanisms.

See my link on falsification of evolution in previous post.

Evolutionary research is the antithesis of empiricism. It is nothing but assumptions and baseless extrapolations based on the preconceived philosophy of materialism/naturalism.

Your opinion.

The idea of evolution was not invented by Darwin. Many of the founders of modern biology, .e.g, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, considered evolution prior to Darwin but believed it was impossible. Before evolution became dogma, almost all scientists, including Sir Isaac Newton, believed in ID. What do you mean by "Evolution came before ID".

Creationism was before evolution but none of it even looked to biology. It offered no explanations and was more theology than anything. In my previous link to ID, you'll read that the term ID was used to replace creationism in 1988. And that's what I'm referring to.

I suggest we start practicing science and not the religion of evolution.

What do you mean? How is evolution a religion? If I ask why evolution? I would get evidence, explanations, reasoning all which eventually leads back to the most basic of assumptions in science. I'd hardly call that a religion.
But if I asked, why god? The answer would probably be "because."

You are taking a very naive position, considering that "science" has been dead wrong many times in the past. I repeat, "Science" does not proclaim evolution to be true. The majority of liberal biologists who are mired down in the paradigm of Darwinism do, but that does not extend to many other fields of science.

See above link.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby mith » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:37 am

Springer wrote:
You're ignoring a fundamental difference between a physican and a nuclear physicist as compared to an evolutionary biologist. A physician who prescribes you the wrong drug has accountability, as does the engineer designing a nuclear power plant. An erroneous conclusion in the evolutionary world is devoid of consequences. Evolutionary biology has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of science and has had no positive impact on humanity.


Sure there is, the scientist would lose all credibility, be cast out of society and become a hobo. Just because something isn't a life or death issue, doesn't make it not accountable.
Positive impact? I'd google for that. Not enough space to explain here.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN


Postby Springer » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:07 am

mithrilhack wrote:
Springer wrote:

You're questioning how trustworthy science is, well I ask you how trustworthy are your senses and logic? Saying that scientists in 1500 are wrong is a true statement but yet leads nowhere. There is no true certainty in any of the ways of knowing. We have to use the tools we have, even with their flaws.

The opinions of scientists, even the majority, can be wrong, as history has demonstrated. That is my only point.

Such as? Michael Behe has good credentials but certainly there's more than enough critiques of his works to show where the majority lies.

I'm merely stating that you are wrong if you think there is a consensus. There is serious debate among well-credentialed scientists. I agree that you are in the majority, but this is not a popularity contest.

Like, I said, I don't know what assumptions his figures are based on. But probably 10^-40 is a good enough probablilty in his context. We both don't know what the context is so we can't really say whether it's a high or low probablity. Ask him if you seek more info.


You need to read the articles rather than blindly offering me canned rebuttals. The author had a very poor grasp of probability concepts.

I have read a number of recent articles on abiogenesis, and there is nothing that even remotely shows that it is possible.

Your opinion, and that of other ID/creationists.


You asked me to read the literature. I have. Now you make a blanket statement that I and other ID/creationists are wrong. Since ID is not "science", then I don't have a right to refute their hypotheses, however illogical they might be. Perhaps you could point me to a specific hypothesis of abiogenesis, and we can discuss it.




Creationism was before evolution but none of it even looked to biology. It offered no explanations and was more theology than anything. In my previous link to ID, you'll read that the term ID was used to replace creationism in 1988. And that's what I'm referring to.


This is a common misconception and demonstrates supreme arrogance. You suppose that anyone who believed in God did so because they were steeped in religion, not because of what they observed. This is patently false.

What do you mean? How is evolution a religion? If I ask why evolution? I would get evidence, explanations, reasoning all which eventually leads back to the most basic of assumptions in science. I'd hardly call that a religion.


Just read articles by leading evolutionists. Dawkins called anyone who refuted evolution as "wicked" and "stupid". Does that sound like an objective scientist?
Evolution presumes atheism. It is never explicitly stated, but always implied. Evolution is an ideology of materialism. Many of those who embrace it are in love with it and zealously defend it, as if their preserving it from infidels. They will go at any length to deny the existence of intelligent design, regardless of how illogical their explanation might be. This is not objective scientific inquiry... not even remotely so.

But if I asked, why god? The answer would probably be "because."


Everything in nature proclaims loudly of the existence of a supreme being. If you cannot see the evidence, that is no indication that the evidence is not there.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:52 pm

Springer wrote:The opinions of scientists, even the majority, can be wrong, as history has demonstrated. That is my only point.

Fair enough. But can you prove that this time they are wrong? You have not so far, other than saying you don't see the evidence.

I'm merely stating that you are wrong if you think there is a consensus. There is serious debate among well-credentialed scientists. I agree that you are in the majority, but this is not a popularity contest.

The figures were 120,000 vs 350. And that's just in America.

You need to read the articles rather than blindly offering me canned rebuttals. The author had a very poor grasp of probability concepts.

If you say so. Although I doubt you have better credentials than him and I know who's opinion I would trust.

You asked me to read the literature. I have. Now you make a blanket statement that I and other ID/creationists are wrong. Since ID is not "science", then I don't have a right to refute their hypotheses, however illogical they might be. Perhaps you could point me to a specific hypothesis of abiogenesis, and we can discuss it.

I don't think I said you were wrong, I just said that it wasn't scientific. That's why you can't use ID to refute or prove anything scientific.

This is a common misconception and demonstrates supreme arrogance. You suppose that anyone who believed in God did so because they were steeped in religion, not because of what they observed. This is patently false.

Not at all, read my previous post to see what I'm actually referring to.

Just read articles by leading evolutionists. Dawkins called anyone who refuted evolution as "wicked" and "stupid". Does that sound like an objective scientist?

Quote was taken out of context.

Actual quote:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Although I will agree he is a bit pompous, but this doesn't in anyway reflect his job as a scientist. Your argument is simply attacking the person and again not the biology.

Evolution presumes atheism. It is never explicitly stated, but always implied. Evolution is an ideology of materialism. Many of those who embrace it are in love with it and zealously defend it, as if their preserving it from infidels. They will go at any length to deny the existence of intelligent design, regardless of how illogical their explanation might be. This is not objective scientific inquiry... not even remotely so.

It also presumes social darwinism and survial of the fittest if you want to look at it that way. And of course that leads to eugenics and all that good stuff.
I prefer to simply look at it for its scientific merits and keep theology out of it. You can have your own opinion.

Everything in nature proclaims loudly of the existence of a supreme being. If you cannot see the evidence, that is no indication that the evidence is not there.

Not the point of my statement. I'm saying the basis of science is the assumptions of science and the scientific process. But the basis of any religion leads back to the assumption of a god.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:55 am

quote="mithrilhack"][quote="Springer"


The figures were 120,000 vs 350. And that's just in America.


Would you please reference that figure... I'd be interested. I find that highly doubtful. Who do you classify as "scientists?"
You need to read the articles rather than blindly offering me canned rebuttals. The author had a very poor grasp of probability concepts.

If you say so. Although I doubt you have better credentials than him and I know who's opinion I would trust.


We're not having an intelligent debate if you insist on just referring to the "experts".
You asked me to read the literature. I have. Now you make a blanket statement that I and other ID/creationists are wrong. Since ID is not "science", then I don't have a right to refute their hypotheses, however illogical they might be. Perhaps you could point me to a specific hypothesis of abiogenesis, and we can discuss it.

I don't think I said you were wrong, I just said that it wasn't scientific. That's why you can't use ID to refute or prove anything scientific.


I would still be interested in discussing any specific article that reports that abiogenesis is possible, if you have one.



Actual quote:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Although I will agree he is a bit pompous, but this doesn't in anyway reflect his job as a scientist. Your argument is simply attacking the person and again not the biology.


If greatly reflects on his objectivity. He is in love with evolution and hates the concept of ID. How can he objectively evaluate anything?


It also presumes social darwinism and survial of the fittest if you want to look at it that way. And of course that leads to eugenics and all that good stuff.
I prefer to simply look at it for its scientific merits and keep theology out of it. You can have your own opinion.


With those assumptions, Evolution cannot be regarded as objective science. Think about it.... the only competing hypothesis, i.e., intelligent design, is arbitrarily branded as non-existent. Why? Not because anyone's proven it false (it's unfalsifiable, remember?). The reason it's rejected as "science" is either an attempt at political correctness or an excuse to exclude any competing theories. Thus, evolution becomes "true" by default. This has been the assumption since the mid-1800's. How can you have scientific objectivity when you're assuming that the theory is true before you start?

Not the point of my statement. I'm saying the basis of science is the assumptions of science and the scientific process. But the basis of any religion leads back to the assumption of a god.


A belief in God is not a requirement for religion. Buddism does not proclaim a belief in diety per se. Atheism is a religion, as is social darwinism... the religion of materialism/naturalism.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:06 am

Springer wrote:Would you please reference that figure... I'd be interested. I find that highly doubtful. Who do you classify as "scientists?"

It was referenced in my previous post. See source #3 of the wikipedia article.
We're not having an intelligent debate if you insist on just referring to the "experts".

In a debate on science, my opinion is worthless(I'm not a scientist per se)
Unless we're using our own research, we're using someone else's. That's what supporting an argument is, appealing to authority.


I would still be interested in discussing any specific article that reports that abiogenesis is possible, if you have one.

http://www.biocab.org/Origin_of_Life.html

One I could find with my lack of subscription to databases such as sciencedirect where there are probably more..

If greatly reflects on his objectivity. He is in love with evolution and hates the concept of ID. How can he objectively evaluate anything?

Yes, force him to resign and take a job where he can be subjective, maybe a movie critic. There's a certain degree of professionalism in everyone, even doctors have to treat child molesters and convicted dictators.
Since you like philosophy so much, here's a link
http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/T ... koff5.html

mithrilhack wrote:It also presumes social darwinism and survial of the fittest if you want to look at it that way. And of course that leads to eugenics and all that good stuff.
I prefer to simply look at it for its scientific merits and keep theology out of it. You can have your own opinion.


Springer wrote:With those assumptions, Evolution cannot be regarded as objective science. Think about it.... the only competing hypothesis, i.e., intelligent design, is arbitrarily branded as non-existent. Why? Not because anyone's proven it false (it's unfalsifiable, remember?). The reason it's rejected as "science" is either an attempt at political correctness or an excuse to exclude any competing theories. Thus, evolution becomes "true" by default. This has been the assumption since the mid-1800's. How can you have scientific objectivity when you're assuming that the theory is true before you start?

Or simply because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of science. It's like having men compete in the WNBA.

A belief in God is not a requirement for religion. Buddism does not proclaim a belief in diety per se. Atheism is a religion, as is social darwinism... the religion of materialism/naturalism.

I'm not defining religion as a belief system. What's the point of having a separation of church and state(religion) when anything and everything can be defined as religion under your terms. I don't particularly want to debate the definitions of science and religion etc...way off topic.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:42 pm

quote="mithrilhack"


In a debate on science, my opinion is worthless(I'm not a scientist per se)
Unless we're using our own research, we're using someone else's. That's what supporting an argument is, appealing to authority.

There is a difference between real science and evolution. Your opinion may be worthless in matters of hard science, such as quantum mechanics or biomedical research. If a mathematician claims to have a new formula for calculating prime numbers, thousands of other mathematicians will eagerly attempt to prove him right or wrong by hard evidence, all proof ultimately reducible to accepted axioms. Conclusions of evolutionary research bear no similarity to this kind of science. They are based on assumptions, unwarranted extrapolations, and opinions. Don’t ever think that you have to defer to “authorities” when it comes to matters such as the origin of life. No one on earth understands what life is, let alone how it got started. They are all guessing. You are entitled to an intelligent opinion based on what you have observed you’re your personal research. You can independently evaluate the evidence, because there are, in truth, no experts.

A supporting argument is not appealing to authority. A supporting argument must stand on its own.
If I submitted an article to a major medical journal and used as evidence that 90% of doctors think such and such a drug is effective, that would be meaningless and would not even be accepted for publication, unless I could show double blind studies that proved it and I could document that bias was eliminated.

I would still be interested in discussing any specific article that reports that abiogenesis is possible, if you have one.

http://www.biocab.org/Origin_of_Life.html


The article you referenced says nothing as to how abiogenesis could have occurred. I makes statements of the existence of hypothetical protobionts, prebionts, and archeobionts, all of which are completely undefined entities. The only “evidence” the author gives is the Stanley Miller experiment, which proved nothing in terms of abiogenesis. To this point, you have not given me any reason to believe that abiogenesis is possible. You can appeal to authority, but when I look at the evidence, there isn’t any. I invite you to do the same. You seem like an intelligent person. The article is shrouded in pseudoscientific rhetoric. I must warn you that it is a deliberate smokescreen which attempts to intimidate the reader into thinking the author must know what he’s talking about. If you study it, however, you will see how transparent his “evidence” is, because he doesn’t have any. If you disagree with what I’m saying, I’d appreciate you pointing out specifically what validity you think the article has, other than a blanket appeal to authority.

Yes, force him to resign and take a job where he can be subjective, maybe a movie critic. There's a certain degree of professionalism in everyone, even doctors have to treat child molesters and convicted dictators.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Since you like philosophy so much, here's a link
http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/T ... koff5.html


What is your specific point.

mithrilhack wrote:It also presumes social darwinism and survial of the fittest if you want to look at it that way. And of course that leads to eugenics and all that good stuff.
I prefer to simply look at it for its scientific merits and keep theology out of it. You can have your own opinion.


You said it... the presumption of evolution is made, thereby eliminating the possibility of ID. That is not science. I agree that theology should be kept out of the discussion. I am not using theological arguments... I am appealing to the facts of nature. No one can defend abiogenesis by pointing to observational evidence. Evolutionists, not creationists, are the ones who defend their theory with religious/philosophical debate.

Springer wrote:With those assumptions, Evolution cannot be regarded as objective science. Think about it.... the only competing hypothesis, i.e., intelligent design, is arbitrarily branded as non-existent. Why? Not because anyone's proven it false (it's unfalsifiable, remember?). The reason it's rejected as "science" is either an attempt at political correctness or an excuse to exclude any competing theories. Thus, evolution becomes "true" by default. This has been the assumption since the mid-1800's. How can you have scientific objectivity when you're assuming that the theory is true before you start?

Or simply because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of science. It's like having men compete in the WNBA.

A belief in God is not a requirement for religion. Buddism does not proclaim a belief in diety per se. Atheism is a religion, as is social darwinism... the religion of materialism/naturalism.

I'm not defining religion as a belief system. What's the point of having a separation of church and state(religion) when anything and everything can be defined as religion under your terms. I don't particularly want to debate the definitions of science and religion etc...way off topic.[/quote]
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:01 pm

Springer wrote:There is a difference between real science and evolution. Your opinion may be worthless in matters of hard science, such as quantum mechanics or biomedical research. If a mathematician claims to have a new formula for calculating prime numbers, thousands of other mathematicians will eagerly attempt to prove him right or wrong by hard evidence, all proof ultimately reducible to accepted axioms. Conclusions of evolutionary research bear no similarity to this kind of science. They are based on assumptions, unwarranted extrapolations, and opinions.

Math isn't science. It's pure logic and has no bearing on the real world(there's no mathematical circles or lines found in nature)
Physics is full of assumptions and has more math than the other sciences. Quantum mechanics talks about electrons that are in more than one place at once, WIMPs and MACHOs that can't be detected but have mass, light that is both wave and particular in nature and all sorts of other weird unexplanable phenomenon. Gravity supposedly exists because of a graviton but has anyone ever seen a graviton? No, it's never been observed, those darn crazy physicists made it up. Why don't they make a theory of intelligent falling?
I'm surprised you're not attacking the Big Bang since it is a theory contrary to the Judeo-Christian model of creation.

You should start a new thread if you want to know what science is and whether it's reliable.

Don’t ever think that you have to defer to “authorities” when it comes to matters such as the origin of life. No one on earth understands what life is, let alone how it got started. They are all guessing. You are entitled to an intelligent opinion based on what you have observed you’re your personal research. You can independently evaluate the evidence, because there are, in truth, no experts.

Why do we have reverends, priests or rabbis? Do any of us know more about god than the other? Of course, they are experts in their field and have more insight, experience etc....

Of course I'm entitled to my own opinion. But that doesn't make me credible. ID proponents would claim the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute are experts and use those opinions to support theirs. If no one knows more than the other, then it's just the blind leading the blind ain't it?

A supporting argument is not appealing to authority. A supporting argument must stand on its own.
If I submitted an article to a major medical journal and used as evidence that 90% of doctors think such and such a drug is effective, that would be meaningless and would not even be accepted for publication, unless I could show double blind studies that proved it and I could document that bias was eliminated.
If you want to start a new thread on science be my guest.

The article you referenced says nothing as to how abiogenesis could have occurred. I makes statements of the existence of hypothetical protobionts, prebionts, and archeobionts, all of which are completely undefined entities. The only “evidence” the author gives is the Stanley Miller experiment, which proved nothing in terms of abiogenesis. To this point, you have not given me any reason to believe that abiogenesis is possible. You can appeal to authority, but when I look at the evidence, there isn’t any. I invite you to do the same. You seem like an intelligent person. The article is shrouded in pseudoscientific rhetoric. I must warn you that it is a deliberate smokescreen which attempts to intimidate the reader into thinking the author must know what he’s talking about. If you study it, however, you will see how transparent his “evidence” is, because he doesn’t have any. If you disagree with what I’m saying, I’d appreciate you pointing out specifically what validity you think the article has, other than a blanket appeal to authority.

You're confusing evidence of possiblity and evidence of it happening. Certainly there is a possibility and the paper discusses some avenues that might have been taken. As for evidence of happening, that has already been addressed in previous posts.

Yes, force him to resign and take a job where he can be subjective, maybe a movie critic. There's a certain degree of professionalism in everyone, even doctors have to treat child molesters and convicted dictators.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Dawkins is a professional and will act like one irregardless of his personal opinions towards science/evolution/creationism.

Since you like philosophy so much, here's a link
http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/T ... koff5.html

What is your specific point.

You claim that scientists need to be totally objective and that they can't be like Dawkins(subjective). Well, read the link.

You said it... the presumption of evolution is made, thereby eliminating the possibility of ID. That is not science.

Or that ID doesn't qualify(as science and thus as an alternative) and evolution isn't aimed at eliminating ID.

I agree that theology should be kept out of the discussion. I am not using theological arguments... I am appealing to the facts of nature. No one can defend abiogenesis by pointing to observational evidence. Evolutionists, not creationists, are the ones who defend their theory with religious/philosophical debate.

You haven't used it yet, but if you support ID, you're going to have to call on God sooner or later.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:06 am

quote="mithrilhack"][quote="Springer"


Gravity supposedly exists because of a graviton but has anyone ever seen a graviton?

Evolutionists argue that God can't be seen or measured. However, the consequences of creative design can be objectively evalutated, just as the consequences of gravity lead one to the conclusion that it exists.

I'm surprised you're not attacking the Big Bang since it is a theory contrary to the Judeo-Christian model of creation.


I'm trying to focus on abiogenesis in this thread. The fact that educated people seriously consider the Big Bang as a scientific hypothesis only underscores how desperate they are to come up with anything other can concede the existence of God.


Why do we have reverends, priests or rabbis? Do any of us know more about god than the other? Of course, they are experts in their field and have more insight, experience etc....


I would never defer to someone else's opinion such weighty matters as the existence of God. Don't let "experts", whether scientists, philosophers, or clergy, make that decision for you.

Of course I'm entitled to my own opinion. But that doesn't make me credible. ID proponents would claim the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute are experts and use those opinions to support theirs. If no one knows more than the other, then it's just the blind leading the blind ain't it?


All I'm suggesting is that you maintain an open mind and don't just accept what the majority of "scientists" believe or state to be true. "Science" can be and not infrequently is dead wrong.


You're confusing evidence of possiblity and evidence of it happening. Certainly there is a possibility and the paper discusses some avenues that might have been taken.


The paper did not provide any evidence that abiogenesis is possible... it only made conjectures which were devoid of any empirical support.

As for evidence of happening, that has already been addressed in previous posts.

There is no evidence anywhere that abiogenesis is possible. Evidence of replication of simple proteins in a lab means that simple proteins can self replicate under certain conditions. The Stanley Miller experiment proved that amino acids could spontaneously form. None of this is evidence that the spontaneous formation of life is possible.

Dawkins is a professional and will act like one irregardless of his personal opinions towards science/evolution/creationism.


He does not act like a professional. He is an outspoken atheist who has personal contempt for religion. His personal theology results in a very narrow minded persepective.


You claim that scientists need to be totally objective and that they can't be like Dawkins(subjective). Well, read the link.


I would appreciate it if you would make a specific point rather than to just tell me to "read the link".


Or that ID doesn't qualify(as science and thus as an alternative) and evolution isn't aimed at eliminating ID.


Don't you see how irrational that kind of thinking is? You're saying ID doesn't qualify as science,... therefore it is not an alternative... the only conclusion, then, is that it must be false. Why is something "false" just because some have decided it can't be evaluated?

As far as evolution aimed at eliminating ID.... If you read any textbook on evolution, listen to any lecture or read any article on the subject, there is always a presumption of atheism. While the evolutionist will claim that he tolerates religion, his naturalistic philosophy opposes it.

You haven't used it yet, but if you support ID, you're going to have to call on God sooner or later.


I appeal to the facts of nature. Nature is not a continuum, as evolution predicts. There is no experiment that shows that macroevolution is even within the realm of possibility. Matter does not spontaneously go from a state of randomness to ever-increasing complexity as evolution demands. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that it ever happened.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:13 am

I shouldn't have waited so long to check back on this, since now I have some catching up to do. :( Oh well, here goes . . .

Springer wrote:

"I agree with you. I don't deny that God couldn't have used evolution in the creative process. I would come to that conclusion if there was evidence of it, which there is not."

I'm glad we can agree on that, since that's the biggest point I've been trying to make. I disagree with you about there being evidence for it, but this is about abiogenesis so I'll deal with that in another thread should the topic arise..

"I'm trying to focus on abiogenesis in this thread. The fact that educated people seriously consider the Big Bang as a scientific hypothesis only underscores how desperate they are to come up with anything other can concede the existence of God."

Mithril wrote:

"I'm surprised you're not attacking the Big Bang since it is a theory contrary to the Judeo-Christian model of creation."

Wrong!!! 8) The Big Bang has nothing to do with denying the existence of God. In fact it was actually first proposed by the Catholic Church, in order to prove that God does in fact exist!

You see, before the Big Bang, scientists believed that the universe had always been here, so it needed to creator/creation. This was called steady state theory. The Catholic Church, which to this day still invests enormous amounts of capital to astronomical research, was obviously upset by this and started looking for some way to prove that the universe did in fact have a moment of creation. A Belgian Jesuit, Fr. Georges Lemaitre, came up with the Big Bang theory, which was immediately approved by Pope John XXIII, so the Big Bang was actually church doctrine even before Einstein and Hubble approved it! 8)

As far as being contrary to the Judeo-Christian model of creation, the Big Bang is not and neither is evolution. If I may be excused for referencing Scripture, Genesis says that, before God created, there was nothing, and then God said, "Let there be light." That's pretty much what would happen if a great explosion (Big Bang) happened, a blinding flash of light. To make a long story short, Genesis goes on to describe life starting in the water, then on land, and finally man. That's the same order as evolution. So, depending on how you interpret it, evolution and the Big Bang are described in the Bible, and therefor are not contradictory to the Judeo-Christian creation model.

To conclude, any invocation of God/"Intelligent Designer" is little more than an attempt to explain something that cannot yet be explained naturally. For example, at one time people might attribute a person's intelligence to be a God-given gift; now we see it more as a result of his genetics. I admit that abiogenesis, while possible, has not been solidly proven, so perhaps the view that God created the first life may still be viable. Perhaps one day solid proof of abiogenesis will be possible, or perhaps not. Until then, I will put my faith not in the inability of science to explain certain aspects of nature, but in the beauty and majesty of a God Who designed a universe so brilliant that it is, after all, understandable.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Springer » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:07 am

quote="alextemplet"

To conclude, any invocation of God/"Intelligent Designer" is little more than an attempt to explain something that cannot yet be explained naturally.

It is illogical to assume that God doesn't exist and therefore our inability to explain complexities of nature is only a reflection of our lack of knowledge. This is exactly the reasoning evolutionists use.

For example, at one time people might attribute a person's intelligence to be a God-given gift; now we see it more as a result of his genetics.

That is a perspective based on materialism, not on any empirical evidence.

I admit that abiogenesis, while possible, has not been solidly proven,...

Abiogenesis has not been proven to be even remotely possible.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests