|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
ack! you are correct! I shall edit my post appropriately. I even noticed that when I went to reply, but read through the post first and missed it on the way back
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Hi marc9000
Glad to see you have returned to the thread and weren't just one of those single-post anomalies. I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post. I simply want to add one crucial point. The notion of "design" has been discussed in depths in other threads, and I would encourage you to search the forums for more on this matter. You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent. There are many many examples of natural processes that result in the illusion of design. Virtually anything you look at in nature, from an organism to a solar system to a galaxy... has an illusion of design. These things are "designed" only in the sense that they have achieved levels of complexity through natural processes that are greater than their initial state. These resulting higher levels of complexity were not decided in advance The important distinction is that the term "design" implies an overarching plan with a purpose and a target goal. The design we see in living organisms clearly demonstrates that they were built bottom-up, not top-down. There was no master plan for "goldfish" that results in a goldfish... instead there is the geneticly coded instruction for a goldfish embryo, a coded instruction that has a long history of gradual change in small steps that only seem dramatic when viewed over the vast expanse of geological time. There is a tremendous difference between this illusion of design, and design in the sense of a plan with a predetermined goal/purpose. When you add the word "intelligent" before design, you are in a whole new arena, and there simply is no evidence of such in nature. Literally everything that you could point to as "evidence of intelligent design" has been shown to be a result of natural processes. Does that mean I am biased against "intelligent design" ? No. It simply means that there is no evidence of intelligent design. If you think that my comments imply that we shouldn't be looking for evidence of intelligent design... I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY scientist who studies living organisms and astrophysics is CONSTANTLY looking for evidence... ANY EVIDENCE... that will point them towards a deeper understanding of the processes they observe. If they came across evidence of intelligent design, they'd be as excited as they are now when they don't. The fact is, they don't. Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Briterican.
Briterican writes: You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent. In my mind, I don't view these as the assumptions of the model. But, then, I have a tendency to ignore the theological underpinnings of the ID movement and simply engage it as if it were science (that's what they want, after all, isn't it?). There are logical reasons why IDists often think life had to be designed and whay the designer had to be intelligent. "Logical" here meaning that they can be derived from logical reasoning, given certain premises. Here are some examples:
In coded information in DNA, WordBeLogos argued that intelligence is required to make a code, because all known codes are the product of intelligence. And, in Biogenesis, AlphaOmegakid suggested that the first life must have come from pre-existing life because the Biogenetic Law has been proven by repeated observation of life giving birth to new life. The common thread of practically all ID arguments about origins is the concept of abiogenesis contradicting some known law of science. So, I would say that the basic assumptions of ID are that (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; and (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s). In my mind, the primary failure of ID arguments about origins is an inordinate obsession with the wording of broad theories, and a general aversion to engagement of the context and principles of the theory. They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own. Edited by Bluejay, : Added "all" in the line about WordBeLogos -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Hi Bluejay
Bluejay writes: ... I have a tendency to ignore the theological underpinnings of the ID movement and simply engage it as if it were science (that's what they want, after all, isn't it?). A reasonable approach. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real science coming from their camp.
Bluejay writes: So, I would say that the basic assumptions of ID are that (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; and (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s). This is an interesting way to look at it, and I see nothing wrong with the way you reach that conclusion. If that is, in fact, the way ID proponents see it, then here's how I would respond to them... (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; ... I don't agree with that statement to begin with, but if I did, I would simply say "well then our laws of science are incomplete". (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s). ... As mentioned above, I don't see any contradictions to begin with, but even if I did, introducing a supernatural entity as an answer is the ultimate cop-out which has no explanatory value.
Bluejay writes: They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own. What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it). I'd like to quickly return to the two examples you gave of logical reasons why IDists think life had to be designed by an intelligent designer:
--- I'm afraid I don't see this as logical. a) not all known codes are the product of intelligence - take the genetic code for example (circular, I know) b) even if all known codes were the product of intelligence, that does not automatically mean that intelligence is required to make a code.
--- again, I don't really see this as logical. Biogenesis is well-understood, and there is no doubt that life, as we know it today, is created only by other life. However, that does not automatically preclude the possibility that the very first life emerged from non-living matter/processes. (note: I appreciate that you may not share the views expressed in the examples you presented)
Bluejay writes: ...they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own. A good point. I have had people say to me "Look around you man... all this stuff, these trees, these plants, these people - it is ALL evidence of God." NO, no no no no. Our existence alone is not evidence of God. Our existence (viewed against the backdrop of our understanding of the universe) is evidence that "something happened" which led to us. Why is it easier to imagine that "something" as an all powerful entity, rather than as some underlying property or process that we don't yet understand? Thanks for your reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I think this issue has been discussed long enough already, so this will probably be my last comment on it.
Only the phrase "special creation" means so much more than that. It would not, for example, incorporate the case where God created the first primitive life and then sat back and let evolution roll. As soon as a supernatural being would come in and create something (without using the natural laws) then this should be included into 'special creation'.
My experience of creationists is that, like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they tend to shout "strawman!" whenever they watch someone debunk some aspect of the great tangled ball of creationism / conspiracism that they themselves do not happen to believe in. I try to be careful with the use of the word 'strawman'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As soon as a supernatural being would come in and create something (without using the natural laws) then this should be included into 'special creation'. So the man who wrote this about the theory of evolution:
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. ... should be described as a "special creationist"? --- I have always understood special creationism to be that strong version of creationism in which God creates not in general but in particular, individually creating giraffes, crocodiles, spiders, oak trees, and so forth, rather than simply creating the conditions that would produce such things. This is what makes special creationism "special", and distinct from the sort of notion of a creator that might be held by, for example, a deist. Now, if I am wrong, please tell me in what way the adjective "special" does qualify the noun "creationism". It must after all be there to distinguish one particular kind of creationism from creationism in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Bluejay writes: They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own. What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it). that's part of the problem - ID is nothing but a "what if" conjecture at this point, and years and years of trying has taken it no further. I expect that their burning desire to destroy "materialism" and put the bible and yahweh up on an untouchable pedastal (rather than, you know, actually do any hard work) is a large part of the problem. It would only be arrogance for me to say that the rest of the problem is because there is nothing for them to find (since I cannot be sure) - but until they actually knuckle down and do some frigging work and produce something of scientific value, there is zero point in teaching what they don't have. ID makes no predictions that can be falsified - it only ever amounts to "I don't understand how this works, so it must be designed!" or "if I pull out this part it all falls down, so it must be designed!" ID is creationism, plain and simple, and christian apologetics at best - intelligent design mandates a designer, the designer they posit is always the christian god. muslims are quite happy in many arab states to expouse the same sort of words - my friend went to Saudi Arabia and came back with a very highly made glossy book telling him how wonderful allah was and how scientific a book the koran is. It's surprisingly identical to fundy american stuff. scarily so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dr Adequate.
Dr Adequate writes: Now, if I am wrong, please tell me in what way the adjective "special" does qualify the noun "creationism". This is probably my fault: I was the first one to use "special creation" in this thread. I intended it to refer to any sort of creationism that included a supernatural component; and, I think Slevesque started using it to standardize vocabulary with me. In retrospect, I probably should have been more explicit about what I meant. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that — a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference.
quote: Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way. If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science. If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a fact.
quote: Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.
quote: Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things. Origin of life may fall into that category. At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment. (education/university grants, etc.) AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.
quote: Its endorsement page shows that it's endorsed and recommended by Scientific American Magazine, The American Association for Advancement of Science, The Smithsonian Institution, The Geological society of America, the Leakey Foundation, and is used as a reference in countless biology textbooks. If it’s established in public education to this very thorough extent, it shouldn’t be winked and nodded at, for engaging in philosophy that inspires howls of outrage if something comparable comes from the intelligent design community. Even if it contains just a short response to a creationist claim, it can be claimed as a scientific statement, and referenced in public education.
quote: They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat. They are publicly established, and they also have authors like Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and many others cranking out the atheist books that gain attention and interest from a general public that reads them for their social claims far more than for their scientific content. Each side can accuse the other of conspiracy theories. No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.
quote: I agree, the gap isn’t filled, but it still has its gap, and that’s its problem. It starts at step two. If it had naturalistic life from non-life, primordial soup, step by step chemical changes over long periods of time, with no guidance, no purpose, you know —abiogenesis as it is actually defined and understood, then Darwinism would be a complete package. Then we could close down churches, and put science in charge of all moral decisions concerning embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and many other similar things.
quote: Here is why I don’t think it won solely on scientific merit — Origin of Species was released in 1859 without scientific peer review, without much approval, or even notice, from the scientific community at that time, at all. Yet it sold out on the very first day. That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest.
quote: My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry. Hello Bluejay;
quote: Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it, and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Supernatural creation has always been referred to as creation, and a naturalistic origin of life without the supernatural needed a term as Darwinism was growing in popularity by 1870, and Huxley provided it. The distinction between the two terms (creation=supernatural origin of life, vs abiogenesis=natural, unguided origin of life) made perfect sense. To take one of the two terms, and have it vaguely represent both ideas, and leave one idea (naturalistic, unguided origins) without its own reference term simply makes no sense. Unless of course, there is a tricky motive for doing so.
quote: I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
quote: I believe ID has those, in a comparable way as does abiogenesis. Meager? Maybe so. Promisory notes? Very comparable in both cases.
quote: No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people.
quote: What do you think of Victor Stenger’s book; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist? Or Dawkins; The God Delusion? I know you wouldn’t agree with their titles, but would you agree with much of their content? Or what their effect is on science and society?
quote: I understand! ________________________________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your post is far to long to reply to, so I'll address only a point or two:
If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.
Science does not deal with the non-material. The religious community can study whatever subjects they want, in whatever way they want, but perhaps they should just leave science alone. We all know what the real issue is here -- science contradicts a lot of religious beliefs. The solution, on the part of the religious community, seems to be to either discredit science or change it until it is no longer science. (See Behe's comments on the witness stand at Dover.) I have a better idea. Why don't you just leave science alone? If your methods of investigation are superior, stick with them. Knock yourself out! Follow them to wherever they lead, and wherever you want. But just leave science alone.
My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.
How are you going to have ID accepted as science when it doesn't follow the scientific method? It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion. Further, it operates in the political arena, not as a scientific discipline. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this. Check out their staff and their funding. They have far more lawyers and PR flacks than anything else, and any science "fellows" are creationists first and scientists second; they are window dressing to a massive PR effort. Also, check the wiki article on their funding and note the biblical literalist who provided a huge amount of money a few years back -- the one who wants this country run according to strict biblical principles. Not a whole lot of science there either, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: This ain’t my first rodeo. Of course I know I’ll never get the last word, I don’t really seek it. But there’s more fun to be had! I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread. But I’m self employed, quite busy, and I won’t be rushed, especially with multiple challengers/opponents.
quote: Your guess about what I meant was incorrect. I meant we reached an impasse on it because it looked like the two positions had a comparable number of posters in this thread on each side, and it didn’t appear that anyones mind was going to be changed. Some people acknowledge that word meanings are subjective, not subjected to dictates by the scientific community, and discussions on some things can come to a mature end. Others hammer their fist on the table and claim they’re always right and those who don’t agree with them are wrong. Such is often the characteristic of those in the almighty scientific community. As I said, not my first rodeo.
quote: Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.
quote: Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a
negative Hence, it really does have something to do with it.
quote: That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step.
quote: Science textbook material in a few years?
quote: This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have — the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves. The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more. When Dawkins writes a book called The God Delusion, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution.
quote: Your give up everything else claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process. The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement. This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?
quote: But what if my now named webpage didn’t have to reference anything else, what if they just clearly showed that the whole notion of abiogenesis rests upon an exceedingly weak foundation which is actually contrary to much of the scientific knowledge which we actually have obtained through extensive experimentation. Abiogenesis, in fact, violates several basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry which are so universally held as to be axiomatic. To get around these difficulties, evolutionary scientists have turned to various means of modifying their basic abiogenetic theory so as to resolve one or another of the problems presented. Yet, while pointing to directing clays, undersea thermal vents, interstellar amino acid generation, or several of the other more esoteric and generally dismissed theories, evolutionists manage to resolve (or often, just give the illusion of resolving, in the popular image framed by the media) one problem, while yet failing to address the other difficulties. Thus, abiogenesis, as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge (apart from any concern for philosophical arguments or pure theory), is not supportable from true science."
quote: If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing.
quote: It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)
quote: I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why?
quote: So a sheer volume of papers gives studies of naturalistic abiogenesis a position in science superior to that of ID? If one has an establishment in public study, (all the associated time and money) and the other doesn’t, wouldn’t it make sense why one outdid the other in volume?
quote: I’ve said nothing about creationist views. I’ve been referring to ID. If you claim such a vast separation between atheism and science, why do you not allow ID proponents to claim an equal separation between religion and ID?
quote: ID looks for design, not the designer. When you say that abiogenesis lovers don’t seek to rule out God completely, then I have to ask for the same WTF that you do. You honestly can’t see that they’re comparable?
quote: You WOULD NOT BELIEVE how well I understand the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the intent of the framers. Maybe if you'll come down off of your haughty platform of scientific knowledge sometime, we can discuss it as two regular, common peasants in a future thread.
quote: As there are no technical details proving naturalistic abiogenesis.
quote: And if you refuse to understand ID, it does not mean it cannot be understood.
quote: A large part of the Christian population is unaware of what’s going on. When the movie "Expelled" came out, a small percentage were awakend. I wasn't, I, like several others, asked, "what took so long?"
quote: I have done that many times. The answer seems to be that they enter scientific study as teenagers, and are indoctrinated/brainwashed into atheism by their public education. A couple of the noted ID haters in "Expelled" (Provine/Crick) admitted that it happened to them, and it happens easily. A worldview reprogramming - the tossing out of a purpose in life, and its associated morals goes along perfectly with allowing the raging hormones all the freedom they need. A perfect time to become smarter than their parents.
quote: It has a number? Atheists in universities have so much time on their hands that they can number the general public’s questions about an atheist establishment in government? Does the numbering/ridiculing process automatically make them false? Does that list appear somewhere on the net? I’d like to see it.
quote: Not when lots of money, and lots of philosophy are involved.
quote: I never said that. ID’s entrance into public science does not automatically mean its dominance in public science. There is no conspiracy theory, other than to reasonably reign in publicly established atheism.
quote: You’re not alone in building these amazing straw men, and it’s this kind of shrieking that causes people to wonder what’s going on in the scientific community, to wonder what they’re afraid of, to wonder what ID proponents actually have to say. You know that I’ve mentioned nothing except ID, a study for evidence of design in nature.
quote: As scientific as the book How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor Stenger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2439 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey marc9000.
No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID. No offense, but please, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a creationist jawing on about the "worldwide conspiracy" of evolutionism. You know, that conspiracy of immense proportions that not one of the millions of geologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, anthropologists, etc over the years has ever inadvertently let slip? Ever? Amazing, no? Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that as yet, ID has brought nothing to the table to advance the study of science specifically, or in general. Let's, for argument's sake, assume that someday ID may finally prove itself in "some" way as to be taught (or at least, addressed) in schools as mainstream science is today. I think the scientific community, for better or worse, would be reluctant to allow ID equal (or any) footing because they would see it as a bit of a slippery slope. What's to stop the YEC, geocentrist, flat earth or other crazy snake-oil type crowds from crying foul the minute science concedes even a minute portion of the playing field to ID? Therein lies the rub. To science, anything involving magic is just that: magic. It's. Just. Not. Science.
They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat. Yes, science is in the "driver's seat", but not because of any athiest bias, marc9000, but because of one thing: CREDIBILITY. What's accepted scientifically is not based on Dawkins or any other athiest's popular literature, but on years and years of evidence, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. Whether you, marc9000, accept that evidence is your own decision, but harping on about how you're so upset that magic isn't equally accepted as such, advances your case not at all. Stereotyping science as you do, as some club where the motto might be: "Athiests only need apply", is disingenuous at best. I can think of more than a few religious scientists, some who post on this forum, who would love nothing more than to see actual, verifiable evidence of a creator. Don't you understand that good scientific study looks for all evidence, and even if you don't believe it, would include magic if it was unequivocal? To be fair, I would concede the point that there are also some unethical folk who would deny or otherwise conceal said evidence. Lucky for science, we won't need to worry about that, eh?
That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest. Or logically, I can conclude that it was purchased by creationists of that time looking to disprove, discredit and otherwise debunk this fledgeling theory. I can play the conspiracy theory game, too. (BTW, they've largely failed in their efforts...) Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : No reason given. Edited by Apothecus, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: So you can sympathize with me as I try to reply to 4 or 5 long posts?
quote: If people like Stenger and Dawkins would leave science alone, it could possibly work.
quote: Science doesn't, but a lot of scientists do. Their opinions vary. In religion, opinions can vary according to different faith beliefs. In science, there are supposedly no faith beliefs. Why is it that not all scientists are as militant as Dawkins and Stenger? Aren't they all referring to the same science? If atheists are running wild with it, why can't others participate?
quote: Not discredit science, just question those who control it.
quote: Science won't leave us alone! It needs our funding, then tells us to get lost, while it promotes atheism to our children.
quote: It can and does, at least to the equivalent of how abiogenesis follows the scientific method.
quote: As those who control it today start with atheism.
quote: This is microscopic compared to the scientific communities' relationship with liberal universities, the Democratic party, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again marc9000, just a brief question:
Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues? It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?
Message 1 It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science. Are you really talking about abiogenesis or the fact that ID is not treated as science because it doesn't meet the specifications of science? Why don't we run down how each measures up to the specifications of science?
Message 11quote: Can you show how ID fits that restrictive description of science as well as ("natural") abiogenesis does? We can start with the scientific method and you can describe how ID meets those criteria: Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote: Let's focus on a topic rather than have a series of roundabouts eh? You've been to a "few rodeos", however in this forum we like specific topics and we like to stick to them. It doesn't appear that any of your subsequent posts have added clarification to the original post for what specific point you would like to discuss.
So you can sympathize with me as I try to reply to 4 or 5 long posts? The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply. And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic. Do you want a discussion or a shouting match? Enjoy.ps ... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Please use the reply button on the message you are replying to for this link to work. Edited by RAZD, : ps Edited by RAZD, : . we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: I appreciate it - you seem like an okay guy.
quote: Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.
quote: At your suggestion, I’ve done that, though only briefly — one can’t really learn much of anything about ID, what it is or what it seeks to do, by reading on forums such as these. (unless I’ve been posting there : p) The biggest talking points against ID by far is to misrepresent what it is. The Wedge Document does not represent it, anymore than Dawkins or Stenger represent all of science. Fortunately, there is one source for learning about what ID is and does — it does have one well known representative who is not an emotional wreck, (unlike the scientific community, it seems) and that is William Dembski.
quote: Like the tremendous, unsupported assumptions of abiogenesis; life originated from non-life, and it did it by natural, unguided process?
quote: Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024