|
3 registered members (Quad, TipmyPip, 1 invisible),
2,064
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
#79539
07/02/06 01:33
07/02/06 01:33
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
That last post was me.
By the way, what happened to biogenesis?
"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
#79540
07/02/06 06:29
07/02/06 06:29
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
I'm curious, what exactly would make evolution seem either unlikely or flat out false to you?
Well there are some very obvious things, such as finding modern-looking fossils in very old strata, such as a flowering plant in the precambrian (however, finding an ancient species alive today does not in any way falsify evolution, as certain species can remain in some kind of "evolutionary stasis" like the coelecanth, although it too has changed somewhat over the ages).
Also, if one found human fossils for instance dated to far older periods, would cause a re-evaluation of human evolutionary theory...so for instance if someone found a human fossil in jurrasic strata, this would prove that at least humans did not evolve on earth the way we believe them to have done...
Dont hold out much hope for any such finds though...they most likely dont exists becasue they probably never happened.
Quote:
I agree with that. But it would probably be the most likely alternative
not at all..there are other possbilities, some kind of other method of evolution besides natural selection. Also there is the possiblity of aliens having created life on Earth (although this doesnt answet the ultimate of question of how life itself arose..)
Anyway, since creationism is not a natural explanation, science wouldnt consider it. As i said many times, you can belive what you want, but science can't--the supernatural is assumed to not exist from the very start, and that all phenomena have understandable causes and obey natural laws.
The supernatural explanation is not an explanation. Creationism is NOT a valid theory, becuase its a euphemism--it means we dont know something. Saying the gods made something happen is always the same as saying we dont why something happened.
Quote:
By the way, what happened to biogenesis?
I suppose its been settled, that it is likely possible..as the various experiments show.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79541
07/02/06 18:03
07/02/06 18:03
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Well there are some very obvious things, such as finding modern-looking fossils in very old strata, such as a flowering plant in the precambrian (however, finding an ancient species alive today does not in any way falsify evolution, as certain species can remain in some kind of "evolutionary stasis" like the coelecanth, although it too has changed somewhat over the ages).
Then I'd like to know why it doesn't bother you that stasis is about the only thing the fossil record actually records.
Your other reasons sound fair on the surface. I just doubt it would ever happen, because if we found human remains in old rock, we'd probably just say that the rock isn't that old. Because homo sapien sapiens showed up 200,000 years ago or whatever.
Quote:
Also there is the possiblity of aliens having created life on Earth (although this doesnt answet the ultimate of question of how life itself arose..)
So you'll admit right here that intelligent design is plausible? Let's say it looked like everything was intelligently designed, for atheists you would believe it was aliens. For christians it would be God, for Muslims Allah, so on and so forth.
You're putting your foot in your mouth here, because on the one hand you want to say creationism is invalid, but if God created us, then it could just as well look like aliens created us (for the atheist). So what were you saying about creationism being invalid?
Quote:
Saying the gods made something happen is always the same as saying we dont why something happened.
I will give you this. But what's the difference between that and aliens? If we have no evidence of who or what created us, we can only scientifically say aliens because it isn't God? That's illogical. The fact of the matter is, if it looked like we were created, we could only scientifically say we were created. You can't start adding in all these stories about who or what it was, even if that thing is naturally occuring. Otherwise its just speculation. But you probably don't see a problem with that, because evolution is speculation.
Quote:
I suppose its been settled, that it is likely possible..as the various experiments show.
Let me get this straight. Your proof that life can start naturally is that you created 13 non-living molecules?
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
#79542
07/02/06 18:46
07/02/06 18:46
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
That last one was me.
edit: I should say, you could scientifically add in a theory about aliens. But the difference is, until you have conclusive evidence that it was aliens, it would have to be admitted that its speculation.
This is the problem creationists have with evolution. Its a natural explanation, but we don't think the evidence is as conclusive as people are led to believe. So we say, "Have evolution, but at least admit that its entirely possible its not the best explanation." That's all we want. We also think it would be fair to teach intelligent design alongside evolution. For instance, we can say there is some evidence that life was created and designed. We can say some people believe it was a supernatural creator, other's think it was aliens, so on and so forth. We don't have to teach anything supernatural as scientific fact. The controversy over evolution would end because it would still be taught, but christians wouldn't be worried that their children are going to lose their faith over fanciful stories about evolution that are taught as fact.
I can be rather strict on my belief that evolution is bunk. But I don't see it as one theory having to destroy the other. I think its only fair that ALL of evolution is taught. Including the things that contradict evolution. What's the point of teaching kids a scientific theory without giving them knowledge to critically examine it? Furthermore, what would the damage be in teaching ID alongside evolution? Kids would still be required to understand evolution to pass.
As a conservative libertarian, I see this as ultimately the pinnacle of what would make scientific teachings the best they can be. Competition is always good, and I'll even take it so far as to say its a good thing secular evolution is taught because it keeps creationists and IDers on their toes. But to completely exclude one plausible theory just because it questions your own is stupid. The lack of competition is why you still to this day have lies about evolution being taught as fact to students.
Which is why I'm so frustrated with the way evolutionists use the courts to keep open discussion out of the classroom. I mean, having a sticker that tells kids to study evolution with an open mind is wrong? As opposed to what? Studying evolution with a closed mind? Its ridiculous.
I think its time to open it up (at least in America) much like a free market. Anyway, that's enough ranting.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/02/06 18:56.
"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
#79543
07/03/06 05:10
07/03/06 05:10
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Then I'd like to know why it doesn't bother you that stasis is about the only thing the fossil record actually records.
Wrong. Of course the fossil record by its very nature will only preserve individuals; what else can exepect??
But that many species did not exists in evolutionary statis is testified to by examples of rtranssitions and changes. Such as in dinosaur evolution, bird evolution, whales, horses and humans.
Quote:
because if we found human remains in old rock, we'd probably just say that the rock isn't that old. Because homo sapien sapiens showed up 200,000 years ago or whatever.
Wrong. Scientists are not in the habit of changing the date of a fossil just becaus they think it an unlikely date, without good reason.
There are many ways to date a fossil or hominid site, including: absolute dating methods of local strata, dating of ashes/carbon found near remains, dating of other fossils found in the area, other dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, thorium-lead, etc.; fission track; thermoluminescence; optically stimulated luminescence; and electron-spin resonance), chemical processes (amino-acid racemization and obsidian hydration), and the magnetic properties of igneous material, baked clay, and sedimentary deposits (paleomagnetism), dendrochronology (counting tree rings of fill trees found in the area, and so on.
Dating fossil/artifcats is a well-defined and accepted science, involving much checking and rechecking, and independent confirmations. Dating of sites is extremely imporant in archeology, paleotolgy, geology, etc.
Where a date is questionable, as many methods as possible are used, and almost always a reasonable date can be determined, and if applied proiperly, scientific dating is never off by a large margin, cetainly not the margin we are discussing. If a date remains questionable, it refered to as such in the literature. There is no conspiracy to redate homoind finds to later periods. If a scietists found an unexpectedly early date it would make his career.
You have to understand, most scientists do not have some kind of set belief about how evolution happened. While they accept a certain chronology, they do so because of the wieght of evidence. There is no reason to dismiss conflicting evidence--contrary to what certain conspiracy-theorist retards may assert.
Quote:
So you'll admit right here that intelligent design is plausible?
Certainly its at least somewhat plausible that all life on earth was engineered sopmewhere by someone. But it seems very unlikely, seeing that, according to the fossil record, new species woud have had to be introduced at different times, constantly.
Also, the idea that an intelligent race or individual would do such a thing seems absurd, as the costs needed would be enormous.
Quote:
Let's say it looked like everything was intelligently designed, for atheists you would believe it was aliens. For christians it would be God, for Muslims Allah, so on and so forth.
Wrong. If something is designed, it may be possible to determine who built it and why. An airplane is designed, but we can find evidence of its designers by analyzing it. Therefore, if it appears that all life on earth was delibrately engineered, the same scientific method can applied to understanding how and perhaps who and why engineered it. It is in no way left up to "God".
Deseign by an intelligent being, like an alien race is not all all like "creationism" because it doesnt require any supernatural events. All it requires is a sufficiently advanced being to do it.
However, this arguement does not answer how all life, such that advanced being itself, came into existence. Therefore it is not good theory of life. I maintain that, even if life on *Earth* was designed, life had to arise naturally somewhere. Supernatural events must be rejected.
The point is moot, because there is no evidence that life was designed delibrately by an intelligent being. On the contrary, all the evidence point to the opposite.
Quote:
But what's the difference between that and aliens? If we have no evidence of who or what created us, we can only scientifically say aliens because it isn't God?
Wrong. This is because as said above, we may be able to find evidence of who or what created life, if indeed there is evidence that it was created. One might codes in the genes or signatures, or serial numbers or something. Either way, aliens are accpeted as a real possiblity. There is no reason at all to suppose that Earth is only planet supporting life in the Universe. Therefore alien lifeforms would likely be somewhat like us, either carbon- or perhaps silicon- based.
Again, even if evidence of intelligent deisng could be found, it is not at all evidence of supernatural creation. All it is is evidence against natural evolution on *Earth*, and support for the existence of life in other places.
Intelligence implies life, not supernatural phenomena. The only intelligence with we are familiar, such as humans and higher animals, is living intelligence. If machines could be made to be intelligent, they might also be said to be alive. All are natural or material entities.
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Your proof that life can start naturally is that you created 13 non-living molecules?
Again, this is not proof that life *did* start that way, only good evidence that it is *possible* it started that way, For me, that is enough to suggest it probably did. It's really the only answer that makes any sense.
I thik it far more likely that life arose and evolved naturally on Earth, than that it was created somewher else, or by some otehr means, real or otherwise.
Because by Occam's Razor, all else being equale, its is simpler; the alternative requires additonal heretofor unknown elements, such as advanced alien beings who can travel interstellar distances, or an implausible "god" entity, for whom there is no evidence at all.
Rational poeple must chose the most likely answer, if there is no compelling evidence to suggest otehrwise. Sorry friend, but your beliefs just aren't very likely. All we can see in the universe is natural phenomena--that follow natural laws--so it is simpler to suggest that life is no different; it arose and evolved naturally, on the Earth.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79544
07/03/06 08:38
07/03/06 08:38
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,101
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,101
Frankfurt
|
There are two topics that are unrelated to abiogenesis, but nevertheless interesting. The abiogenesis topic seems to be finished, somehow. Quote:
I'm curious, what exactly would make evolution seem either unlikely or flat out false to you?
In the 1980s there was the last big chance for creationists to see evolution disproved: the genetic record. If science had found the DNA of species all different, without evidence of a common ancestor, we had to give up evolution and think about a different theory.
However, to the dismay of creationists the genetic record confirmed evolution.
Quote:
Which is why I'm so frustrated with the way evolutionists use the courts to keep open discussion out of the classroom.
In fact it was creationism that at first tried to use the courts for propagating their faith. Science had to react to prevent that the US education system became the laughing stock of the world.
If students had to study creationism, what would then prevent astrologers to obtain a court order for teaching astrology in school? Or witchcraft, daemonism, flat earth, geocentrism, or voodoo?
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79545
07/03/06 22:23
07/03/06 22:23
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Man, I'm tired of responding to these arguments. You make claims that each require their own topic of discussion. The commonality of DNA is so widespread, you could come up with all sorts of trees and each one of them would have evidence. In that case, tarantulas evolved from scallops, the whale has no fossil evidence of evolution, humans evolved from insects, reptiles don't have turtles as an ancestor anymore because turtles are too genetically similar, lizards also lost tartauras to alligators, aardvarks and elephants share a common ancestor, flamingos and grebes apparently have a common ancestor, etc. If all animals did evolve, it isn't the way the fossil record shows, and it certainly can't be found by looking for animals that are similar in shape. The current model of common ancestry works, as long as you ignore all of the evidence that poses a problem for evolution like common DNA constantly appearing across a wide range of species that should have nothing in common. But as long as you don't talk about that too much then you can focus on the stuff that does work. This is like saying, "Comparitive anatomy was a good chance for creationists to see evolution die." No....it was inevitable that you would find some 'evidence', but it only works if you ignore all of the evidence that contradicts evolution. Its pathetic, but whatever...have it your way if you want. Quote:
Again, this is not proof that life *did* start that way, only good evidence that it is *possible* it started that way, For me, that is enough to suggest it probably did. It's really the only answer that makes any sense.
Ok, well then there's no reasoning with you. If creating non-life is your proof that life can be created, then go ahead. Nevermind that its not even the right kind of amino acid. Nevermind that any genetic molecule it would form would be highly unstable and break down. Its the only answer that makes sense.
Quote:
Because by Occam's Razor, all else being equale, its is simpler; the alternative requires additonal heretofor unknown elements, such as advanced alien beings who can travel interstellar distances, or an implausible "god" entity, for whom there is no evidence at all.
Okham's razor doesn't substitute proof. You still need evidence that it could happen.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/03/06 22:31.
"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]
#79546
07/03/06 23:17
07/03/06 23:17
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
The commonality of DNA is so widespread, you could come up with all sorts of trees and each one of them would have evidence.
You could but you would be wrong. Again, learn some things about science before dismissing its results. Phylogenists use genetic evidence like any other evidence; there are precise and scientific methods of analyizing genetic data.
While genetic evidece has shwown that all lifeforms on Earth are probably descended form a common ancestor, it also gives us some specific ideas of exactly which species eveolved from which.
you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of scientists, if you think they make claims for no reason, without plenty of work to back it up; perhaps you think they are all so dumb that they cant understand your simplistic dismissal of thier methods? Come on.
Its not the general "commonality" of DNA that makes phygenetic relationships clear, but the derived traits.
Quote:
In that case, tarantulas evolved from scallops, the whale has no fossil evidence of evolution, humans evolved from insects, reptiles don't have turtles as an ancestor anymore because turtles are too genetically similar, lizards also lost tartauras to alligators, aardvarks and elephants share a common ancestor, flamingos and grebes apparently have a common ancestor, etc.
I'm not sure what to make of this hodge-podge, except to say maybe you should learn about current concensus on phylogenetic/evolutionary relationships among these species.. you can find the facts at http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html , and many other places.
Quote:
Ok, well then there's no reasoning with you. If creating non-life is your proof that life can be created
I never said that the abiogeneisis experments like Urey-Miller *proved* that life arose like this(nor was it the intent of the experimnents to prove this, or to in fact create life). No one claims this. However, as said, it is evidence that it may have arisen in this way, and certainly it refutes the idea that its patently impossible.
Quote:
Okham's razor doesn't substitute proof. You still need evidence that it could happen.
Do you have a hard time follwing simple argument? I didnt say it was proof. I used Occam in the correct manner.. all else being equal, then such and such seems more likely becasue it is simpler.
Of course, not all is equal, and in fact is strongly weighted towards abiogeneiss and evolution.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79547
07/06/06 23:43
07/06/06 23:43
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of scientists
No man is above being wrong. We've spent thousands of years proving that time and again.
I don't think they're stupid, or they wouldn't be scientists. But then again, when I'm a scientist and I'm still a creationist, you'd probably accuse me of being stupid.
Anyway, I won't put words in your mouth. Its just my theory.
Quote:
I'm not sure what to make of this hodge-podge
Then apparently you must think scientists are stupid, because I'm just quoting 'scientists.'
Quote:
I never said that the abiogeneisis experments like Urey-Miller *proved* that life arose like this(nor was it the intent of the experimnents to prove this, or to in fact create life). No one claims this. However, as said, it is evidence that it may have arisen in this way, and certainly it refutes the idea that its patently impossible.
But you just said it was the only scientific possibility. Based on what you just said, can you then at least admit that its highly possible (off the scientific record) that all life arose from a creator?
I'm not going to continue arguing biogenesis, because at this point you're stonewalling and ignoring what I have to say about it. I'll just provide this link.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
That's an old-earth creationist site that frequently bumps heads with answersingenesis.com But answersingenesis doesn't have a useful chart as far as I know.
Matt, if you're going to claim the link is worthless because its a creationist website, I have a challenge for you.
Use wikipedia to research everything on that page, and if you can prove its an outright lie, then you'll have a point.
If you want, I'll research it for you and provide all sorts of ways to back it up from secular sources. ONLY under the condition that when I provide the sources and show proof of what they're saying, you'll admit that intelligent design, at least at the level of the creation of life is a valid scientific theory and because of abiogenesis, wouldn't do any harm being taught in school alongside evolution.
Of course, you can ignore all of that because its kind of a stupid proposal, but I would then posite that it isn't fair for you to cast the link off simply because its a creationist site.
Quote:
Of course, not all is equal, and in fact is strongly weighted towards abiogeneiss and evolution.
You just said that 13 amino acids don't prove abiogenesis, but here you're saying the evidence is weighted towards it. The fact of the matter is, you would have accepted any results, and it doesn't interest you that Miller's experiment raised more questions than it answered. I can't convince you not to be stubborn, so I'll let you keep believing this. Which is why I posted that link. Anyone who's interested in what science really says about abiogenesis, can click that link. In this case, you've just demonstrated that for you, persistent belief (religiousness) is more important than science.
I'd also like to note that that web page cites a source that claims oxygen was around before life first appeared. IF that's true, abiogenesis is dead.
Phemox, abiogenesis (the proof that it couldn't happen; see link) is good proof of a creator. And based on everything else I postulated, pretty good proof that God does, in fact, exist.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/07/06 00:02.
"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]
#79548
07/07/06 14:32
07/07/06 14:32
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,101
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,101
Frankfurt
|
On that website, already the very first claim is dubious: Quote:
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). (2)
At least the second part of that claim is nonsense. The second law of thermodynamics only describes the statistical behavior of free floating particles. You can not use it to describe systems with constraints like gravity or replication. Homochirality only occurs in replicating systems.
You do not need to know anything about thermodynamics to see the obvious nonsense of the statement: If the author were right, biology were impossible, because replication per se already contradicts the second law.
The author claims further that the first part of his statement is backed by a 12 years old article in Scientific American. I will get that article in the next days and check whether that statement can indeed derived from it. Having no clue of thermodynamics, he probably just hasn't understood that article.
This is a typical issue with creationist websites: There are about 20 claims on that website, but when the first one already turns out to be nonsense, you just don't feel like looking into the further claims.
|
|
|
|
