For ToErs Eyes Only

We seem to be getting a lot off topic, let me see if I can bring 'er around.We have individuals here like Faith who have agreed that they have nothing to say regarding any science and don't expect their beliefs to be taught in any science classes. There is no use, need or value in discussing anything with those who honestly hold to this view. That is not what this forum is, at it's core, about.The real issue that must be discussed and attacked is that of so-called scientific creationism. The adherents of which are of a weaker faith and seem to need physical evidence to support. They claim they have scientific support for their views and want them taught in the science classroom.The approach should be to take them at their word. To discuss it based on the evidence and reasoning brought forth.However, this requires some very basic conceptual work. The smarter of these neo-creationists have begun to realize that they can not, in fact, win at that game. Instead they are trying to redefine the game by weakening science as an intellectual discipline. By trying to redefine it to remove some of the constraints; for example the base of evidence or of falsification.To my mind the approach there is to ask about how this new method of examining the physical world will actually work. We get a lot of fluff about how science isn't the only way to learn about the world but when asked for an alternative we get nothing in reply.

The topic isn't religion (though it is to some individuals).While religion of a certain kind underlays the problem with the teaching and acceptance of evolutionary biology, religion in general isn't the problem. And if someone suggests a strategy that is based on eliminating all religious thinking then I think they have a mistaken view of the situation.The problem is to tackle, with a reasonably tight focus those who use, and more, misuse religion in a political fight.

Where have you looked? ABE -- I am near enough 100% sure you have, in fact, not looked very hard at all. If you think the evidence is "imaginary" then why not go to the various threads covering it and point out the flaws.Guessing that you are not in agreement with the current dates of various events in earth's history you should start with: Message 1and any threads it refers to.If you are in agreement with the dating then: Message 1Might be a good starting place.Note: Neither of these is covering evidence for evolution. You have to be sure you understand the basics before you get further into it.Edited by NosyNed, : Needs a little bit of a dig.

Good, I'm glad you understand the time frames involved and the basics of the theory.Now, then why, with that understanding would you bring up a topic (the formation of the first living (or something enough like it) thing which is not a part of the evolutionary explanation for how populations of living, things change over time.Of course, no one is suggesting that a modern cell formed by chance. How life actually arose we don't know. So what? Are you one who thinks it is good theology to suggest a proof of God is anything we don't know the answer too. That's had a very poor track record over history. I told you it wasn't evidence just back ground prepartion. You will have to read more carefully if you are going to make any progress here.Now that you are prepared with an understanding of time frames and the basic theory you can go to the various thread (or create your own) and tell us what is wrong with the evidence presented.Calling it "imaginary" doesn't really help much does it?

Are you going to talk about evolution or abiogenesis?Saying we don't know how it arose doesn't mean that it could not have arisen by chance or that it isn't inevitable. You don't know either.The is no "lack of logic" in proposing a chance origin to the first imperfect replicators. If chance is used though, you have to describe an environment and a simple enough first replicator that the odds become reasonable over a few 100 million years. Note that even rather unlikely events can happen if you keep trying for something like 300 million years.There is, of course, work being done on the question and various things have been learned about the chemistry involved. Won't you feel a bit foolish if you hitch your faith to a, possibly temporary, "I dunno"?How about we leave it at "dunno" for now and get back to evolution and mutation rates. Ok?

Well since no one suggests a cell formed by chance or was the form of first life there is no disagreement there.I suggest you learn about these things before engaging mouth gears.