|
0 registered members (),
3,809
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79529
06/28/06 16:19
06/28/06 16:19
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
While the precise composition of the early earth atmosphere is not yet 100% clear, we know ...
How do "we know"? You state this as fact? How are these facts derived?
Quote:
Organic polymeres had hundreds of millions of years in a much bigger environment for evolving self-replicating proteins.
Once again, this is stated as "fact". How do you "know" that these organic polymeres had "hundreds of millions of years" at all?
Frankly, I could accept these statements if they went something like the following:
"While the precise composition of the early earth atmosphere is not yet 100% celar, we suppose that it contained ... this supposition is based upon (evidence follows)."
"Organic polymeres, according to what we believe, might have had millions of years in a much bigger environment for evolving ..."
The problem here is that science requires observation. No one was there to see the earth as it could have been "millions of years ago". As a result, anything that scientists come up with for how the earth "was" long ago can only be a guess at best. They may study the rock samples. They may look at other planets in our solar system. They may study a lot of things, but I do not believe that we can state any of these things as FACTS.
It seems that modern science, when it comes to the issues we are discussing here, is filled with assumptions passed off as facts.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#79530
06/28/06 16:34
06/28/06 16:34
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Yes. You are absolutely right. We cannot know our past perfectly right. We have to guess sometimes. But a good scientific theory will find more and more evidences over time or will be falsified and gets lost after this. That is a big difference to just believing in a story.
Even if I would be only a simple believer and I had to choose - then I would decide for the more likely and more logical story. And even if there are only a few stones as a proof then this is from my point of view much more likely than only a story written in a book a few hundret years ago with no proof at all.
And if we are all wrong and there is something else then I am sure it will not be a god like you describe the designer. It would be beyond our comprehension in a different dimension that we cannot see and cannot understand. In such a case it is simply waste of time to talk about such a creator since he is different and our little stories written in a bible or any other document from other religions cannot describe him. He is supernatural and beyond our understanding.
With that in mind all our relegious stories would be even more unlikely.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79532
06/29/06 22:30
06/29/06 22:30
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
That is a big difference to just believing in a story.
I love the assumption that we only research the earth through the bible. Some creationists use the bible as a foundation, but they actually get their hands dirty and make scientific observations. They believe these evidences back up creation (biblical or otherwise).
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/29/06 22:56.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79534
07/01/06 03:53
07/01/06 03:53
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Well I could post a response to that. But seeing as how I have no way of knowing which scientists (even evolutionists) publish scientific papers (for sure), I have no idea. By the way, in a science culture dominated by evolutionists, how many creation papers do you suppose will get published? Evolutionists have a hard time publishing papers revealing lies about things like embryology, let alone a paper blantantly supporting creation. I don't go to a church and ask, "How many atheists are there? None? Oh, well then atheism is worthless as a philosophy." I know that there are actual reasons not to be an atheist, and I don't need to use a veiled appeal to authority to support my position. That said, the simple answer is that I don't know. I was going to list creation scientists, but I don't know which ones publish. If a scientist doesn't (or isn't able to) publish, does that make them less of a scientist? Maybe Galileo should have just stopped after being thrown in jail. What's the point of going against 'majority rule.' 
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79535
07/01/06 05:58
07/01/06 05:58
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
in a science culture dominated by evolutionists
More like a science culture dominated by scientists.
Your comparison is not valid, because science is not a religion, and evolution is not a "belief".
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79536
07/01/06 21:08
07/01/06 21:08
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
More like a science culture dominated by scientists.
Naturally.
Quote:
Your comparison is not valid, because science is not a religion, and evolution is not a "belief".
Science isn't a religion, but evolution is a belief. Its the only theory that can't be falsified, or that scientists won't allow to be falsified. I've provided examples in other threads, so I feel no need to debate that in detail here. But it is a pseudoscience, its a creation myth, and its a belief.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/01/06 21:08.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79537
07/01/06 21:18
07/01/06 21:18
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
No, evolution could be falsified under a variety of conditions. But if it were to be falsified, there is absolutely no reason that creation must be correct. It's not a binary relationship--creationism is still not a good alternative. Why? Because there is no evidence for it...and in my view there can not possibly be evidence for a supernatural event.
But to date, the theory of evolution by natural selction has never been falsified credibly--after 150 years that's a very good record.
Scientists are not in the habit of believing in things just because they want to, or not "allowing" a theory to be falsified. If a scientist could actually credibly falsify natural selection, he would have a famous career and probably make lots of money doing books and lecture tours, etc. This notion of a conspiracy to siulence evolutions critics is silly.
The fact is, evolution has been attacked in the same ways since it was first proposed, and those attacks have been shown over and over to be invalid. I dont need to sit here and defend evolution from rehashed arguements; you need to either come up with something new, or give it up.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79538
07/02/06 01:31
07/02/06 01:31
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
No, evolution could be falsified under a variety of conditions
I'm curious, what exactly would make evolution seem either unlikely or flat out false to you?
Quote:
But if it were to be falsified, there is absolutely no reason that creation must be correct.
I agree with that. But it would probably be the most likely alternative.
Some things are kind of a binary relationship. If it could be shown that uniformitarianism is wrong then it would seem likely the earth is coated with the result of a flood.
If different kinds of animals don't change into other kinds, then it would seem likely that all the different kinds of animals were created in roughly the way we seem them (not including micro evolutionary gene shuffling). So on and so forth.
I guess there is an alternative to mutational change, and that is the panspermian idea that comets carried genetic changes to earth. Although I have yet to hear of any evidence that genetic data has or could be carried to earth.
Etc.
Quote:
But to date, the theory of evolution by natural selction has never been falsified credibly--after 150 years that's a very good record.
That's because every time the evidence contradicts the theory you A). Never hear about it or B). Evolutionists rationalize the lack of evidence. For instance, the complete lack of agreement between the fossil record and DNA evidence. The theory isn't falsifiable, you can add any explanation to the evidence to make it fit evolution that you want to. Identical Dll genes between insects and mammals? Well...it just evolved multiple times...to accidentally be exactly the same....Or something.
Quote:
Scientists are not in the habit of believing in things just because they want to, or not "allowing" a theory to be falsified.
Actions speak louder than words.
Quote:
If a scientist could actually credibly falsify natural selection
I disagree. I think it would not only take the discrediting of natural selection (why would you want to discredit that?) it would take another naturalistic replacement theory. Evolutionists won't let go of evolution until there's another natural theory that doesn't involve a creator of any kind.
Quote:
I dont need to sit here and defend evolution from rehashed arguements; you need to either come up with something new, or give it up.
This is a fancy way of saying that you're tired of having to defend your theory and you give up...At least that's the way I read it.
|
|
|
|
