|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9190 total) |
| |
critterridder | |
Total: 919,049 Year: 6,306/9,624 Month: 154/240 Week: 1/96 Day: 1/8 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No Witnesses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
shaddow77 writes: If some deity (as you say poofed life into existence), then it may well be that evolution is planned and not random Well, quite apart from life certainly not being random, if it's planned it sure doesn't look like any planning we humans would understand.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Knowing an origin, doesn't, of course, affect anything about what happens next. If a baby is left on the church steps, with a note saying 'please look after my child,' we can expect it to grow even if we don't know how it got there. Just out of interest, when science has an answer, what will your new reply be? Knowing the orgin may change the explanation as to how what happened next. It may in fact be planned rather than random. I will let you know when science supplies an answer. But I would not get my hopes up as to science finding an answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
I will let you know when science supplies an answer. But I would not get my hopes up as to science finding an answer. It's always best to rehearse - you don't want to be caught wrong footed. There's a lot happening in the microbiology labs now you know. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Frankly, our scientific speculation regarding the origins of life are less than theory, and perhaps less than hypothesis. But what we know about the origin of species is far more substantial, and given the direct contradiction of the origin of species with Genesis, guess what doesn't get taught in science class. I suggest you reread your post. Are you stating that there is in fact an accepted Theory of the orgin of life. If not your post makes not sense. The "logic" you attemp to elucidate in your post not quoted above is dependent on there being an accepted theory of the origin of life, otherwise it makes not sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2304 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If some deity (as you say poofed life into existence), then it may well be that evolution is planned and not random. How could you tell? What is the evidence for evolution being planned?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I will let you know when science supplies an answer. Given that you don't recognize or understand the answers that science has already supplied, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't count on you further developments. But thanks anyway.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
We do know that there is evidence of natural causes.
We also know that no one has ever presented any evidence of any non-natural or supernatural causes.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined:
|
Coyote writes:
How could you tell? What is the evidence for evolution being planned? There are a whole lot of indications of planned in the closed thead about whether Darwin's theory should be modified or replaced. All of the Shapiro stuff and cells being sentient to a degree and the exchange of information et. al. Thats a subject hopefully for another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
subbie writes:
Given that you don't recognize or understand the answers that science has already supplied, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't count on you further developments. But thanks anyway. That seems to be the consensus on this board, but if you will remember, When I discussed Shapiro's views on this board, he in an e-mail said I understood him pretty well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
tangle writes:
It's always best to rehearse - you don't want to be caught wrong footed. There's a lot happening in the microbiology labs now you know. I will wait until I see something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1453 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
How wonderful for you. You claim that one person says you understand one concept pretty well. On the other hand, most everything I've seen you write here indicates you don't understand the first thing about how science works, or what the ToE says.
I'll stick to my original position.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
When I discussed Shapiro's views on this board, he in an e-mail said I understood him pretty well. Let's put that claim into context. When we questioned you about some concepts expressed in Shapiro's views, in particular "purifying selection" you admitted that you had no clue what Shapiro was talking about. You were not even able to tell when Shapiro was talking about natural selection even while you were attempting to minimize the role of natural selection in relation to Shapiro's work. Anyone who bothers to visit the threads you are talking about is going to find any number of examples of your complete cluelessness regarding biology and the scientific method. If it becomes necessary to do so, I'll provide the pointers myself.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I said exactly what I meant. There is no theory on the origin of life, and no such theory is taught. At best we have working hypotheses and evidence suggesting that abiogenesis is a reasonable explanation.
Despite your wish to believe otherwise, we don't need to understand or accept abiogenesis to accept the theory of evolution. My quoted statement addresses your wish to conflate the term theory with guessing. Somehow, no number of attempts to clarify the role of theory in science has made any dent in that osmium cranium of yours. The conflict with own belief's arises not because we've established how life began, but because despite not nailing down the details regarding the ultimate origin of life, science is still incompatible with the idea that man was created directly from dirt. Man evolved from some common ancestor with chimpanzees.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
I will wait until I see something And then you will, of course, simply deny it. After all, if you can just flatly deny 150 years of evidence and facts in several scientific disciplines that proves that complex life evolved from simpler life over millions of years, what chance does a new major discovery like abiogenesis in your own lifetime stand? This is a difference between the rational and the irrational; the believer's mind set and the scientist's. I can still remember years ago when I first heard the ID arguments, I got all excited that evolution theory was possibly wrong. I read everything I could get my hands on wondering whether it could be true. It took me a couple of weeks to work out it was complete and utter bullshit and I was really pissed off. Partly because of the dishonesty of the case but mostly because of the anti-climax. You can see that sense of excitement with the speed of light problem and Higgs boson stuff at CERN. At least half the scientists want their theories to be proven wrong and the other half are trying desperately to prove them wrong too. Scientists are iconoclasts, they want to prove accepted wisdom wrong. You, with your unalterable beliefs, are the exact opposite. No amount of evidence can possibly change your mind and you spend your life denying every new thing that comes along that might challenge those beliefs. Why are you here if you don't want to learn?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Some people believe God created life, but not necessarily 6000 years ago. So I would agree with your last Paragraph if you changed it to include that God may have created life at a time more than 6000 years ago, and we have no proof or factual basis to disprove that hypothesis. Well, I'm still right, aren't I? A literalistic reading of the Bible is known to be false. Our admitted ignorance of the origin of life does not put all hypotheses on the same level, because although we don't know which ones are true, we can at least identify some of them as false. Your own hypothesis about God creating life but not according to Biblical chronology is also not on the same level. Consider this: the proposition that things happen according to natural law and not by God doing magic is the best supported theory in science. Every experiment ever done, every observation ever made, supports this proposition. We should still consider a miraculous explanation as a bare possibility, but it is contrary to our scientific knowledge as it stands just as though someone proposed that the origin of life involved a violation of the law of conservation of energy. We can conceive of it, we can consider it, but everything we know suggests that that wasn't what actually happened.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024