Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 22 of 215 (651756)
02-09-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


ookuay writes:
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education
If the statement read as follows:
any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."
then I think it is correct.
ookuay writes:
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory?
That statement you cited is not about evolution, it is about the orgin of life.
I have been told many times on this board, that the beginning of life and evolution are separate and distinct discplines.
I for one am of the opinion that you cannot talk about evolution until you discuss the orgin of life.
How can an organism evolve
unless it has an orgin of life?
But if you have to discuss the orgin of life, it is much more difficult to prove your theory of evolution.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Perdition, posted 02-09-2012 8:00 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2012 8:04 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2012 10:16 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 3:44 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 9:32 AM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 28 of 215 (651842)
02-10-2012 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Perdition
02-09-2012 8:00 PM


Perdition writes:
The thing is, we're not even willing to give it the status of theory, because theory is a pretty strong statement. It means that it satisfies all evidence and is so compelling that we grant it the tentative status of "best explanation we've come up with yet."
I used "theory" because that is the way Richard Dawkins refers to origin of life speculations. I agree with your description, but would substitute "speculation" for best explanation.
However I don't see how you can equate your "best explanation statement as stating "should be considered as close to fact as we can get.
It is speculation not fact or close to fact.
Perdition writes:
The point is, life can evolve regardless of what its origins are. It could have been poofed into existence by God, it could have evolved from non-life, it could have been planted by aliens, etc. Once it got started, though, it has evolved.
It may be that the way it has evolved may not be as random as evolutionist assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Perdition, posted 02-09-2012 8:00 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 02-13-2012 11:22 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 29 of 215 (651843)
02-10-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
02-09-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Origins vs. Evolution
Coyote writes:
How would you see the theory of evolution differing with the following possible origins of life? a. Some deity poofed life into existence. b. Some space aliens dropped the starting blocks of life here. c. Life began from organic chemicals, whether from here or outer space. d. Life was transferred here by time travelers from the future. e. Other. Please specify how (and why) evolution would have to be configured differently under each of these scenarios.
If some deity (as you say poofed life into existence), then it may well be that evolution is planned and not random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2012 8:04 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 2:48 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2012 2:59 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 30 of 215 (651844)
02-10-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2012 10:16 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:
First, it should read "hypothesis, not theory" instead of "theory, not fact". 'Cos we wouldn't want to be scientifically illiterate morons, would we?
I was just using Richard Dawkins description "theories" not speculation as they all are.
Dr Adequate writes:
Second, this does not apply to any statement. For example, some people believe that God poofed life into existence about six thousand years ago. This is known to be false, since life is in fact older than this. Not every hypothesis is on the same level of ignorance. Some of them are just wrong, and known to be wrong.
So to be accurate we would have to say: "All hypotheses about the origin of life are unproven, and so should not be regarded as theories. However, at least some of them have been conclusively disproven, such as literal belief in the Book of Genesis, which from a scientific point of view must be regarded as a steaming pile of crap."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2012 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2012 3:57 AM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 32 of 215 (651846)
02-10-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
02-10-2012 3:44 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 3:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 2:57 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 3:01 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 34 of 215 (651849)
02-10-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
02-10-2012 9:32 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 9:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 02-10-2012 3:06 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 5:26 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 38 of 215 (651864)
02-10-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
02-10-2012 2:59 PM


Re: Origins vs. Evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2012 2:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2012 1:46 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 39 of 215 (651865)
02-10-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
02-10-2012 3:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 3:01 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 4:48 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2012 5:14 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 40 of 215 (651867)
02-10-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
02-10-2012 2:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 2:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 6:02 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 46 of 215 (651973)
02-11-2012 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
02-10-2012 3:06 PM


Re: no support for the Grand Poofer.
jar writes:
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.
What we do not know is how nature came into existence. Nature could be part of the plan for all that exists.
Can you present any evidence that nature just poofed into existence and the basis for that poofing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 02-10-2012 3:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 02-11-2012 9:22 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 47 of 215 (651975)
02-11-2012 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by subbie
02-10-2012 4:48 PM


subbie writes:
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.
Have you read that one person's CV?
I think I will stick with his opinion rather than yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 02-10-2012 4:48 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 02-11-2012 11:47 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 49 of 215 (651979)
02-11-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
02-10-2012 6:02 PM


Tangle writes:
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?
I do not deny evolution. I have stated many times on this board that I accept the theory of evolution. What I do not accept is the rationale that evolution has to be a natural phenomen that started out of nothing and is random w/o any purpose.
I accept that complex life evolved over millions of years, but why do I have to accept dogma that states it cannot have been planned?
Please show me the proof that all that exists was started from nothing by some type of natural cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2012 6:02 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2012 11:22 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3040 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 50 of 215 (651982)
02-11-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2012 3:57 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
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 propositionhappened.
I do not deny natural law, but you cannot prove how natural law was instituted. Did if begin out of nothing? Was it planned by God? There is as much support for my proposition than for the proposition that the universe and all now in it came about by something natural. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2012 3:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2012 4:43 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024