Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 49 of 51 (15803)
08-20-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by halcyonwaters
08-20-2002 2:15 PM


[QUOTE][B]No, what I mean is this: If Scientists find a mechanism to naturally form the first cell, what happens? Even though there is no evidence, it will be touted as fact: "This is how we came to be on Earth."[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That formation in the lab would be evidence that life can come from non-life under some particular abiogenesis scenario. It would not make it a fact that is is how it happened on Earth. Media and second-rate textbooks might march it around as a fact that it happened that way, but incorrectly so. It would not be the fault of science if that were to happen.
[QUOTE][B]First of all, all they show in the lab is, it takes intelligence to create life. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
What they show in the lab is that structures suspiciously similar to what chemists expect early life to resemble can appear spontaneously.
This does not show that intelligence is needed to generate life because the same chemical reactions would occur anywhere else under similar conditions, regardless of if a chemist were present or not. Also the chemical reactions are not under intelligent guidance by the chemists, they are following the laws of chemistry. If those reactions could be intelligently guided in the manner you imply, this would be nanotechnology.
[QUOTE][B]And they DO have equal merit -- because NO human was there to observe life forming![/QUOTE]
[/B]
But one can be simulated the other cannot. We know organic compounds can be formed abiologically, and we know that some of these structures resemble life. We cannot speak those compounds into existance. The two do not have equal merit.
[QUOTE][B]This isn't science... there is no way to falsify the claim that life formed in a chemical soup.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually panspermia is a contender. And if only you Creationists could get on the ball and speak something into existance...
[QUOTE][B]Nor is saying life came about naturally.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Science is all about nature. Miracles don't have a place here, and the only spot for God is if God is really behind natural laws.
quote:
Gene90, I'm sure you're aware that YECism, even if wrong, does not hinder ANY practical science. I really dislike this tactic of comparing something one group says happened in the past according to the Bible, with say... medical research.
But it is relevant to medical research because for research in genomics to be valid long strands of DNA must be conserved and must operate in the same fundamental manners in primates and other mammals as in humans. To point out that this is directly relevant to medical research is fair.
Also, I might add that "practical science" (and all science is the same, there is no such thing as "impractical" science) includes oil exploration, which is dependant heavily upon historical geology. Big Oil spends billions on oil exploration. An incorrect (YEC) model brought into the industry could cause economic ruin for their investors and could cripple entire nations. It might *seem* that the age of the Earth and Earth history is academic...it is not.
The very lifeblood of the current global economy is "pumped" by the Old Earth Evolutionist geological paradigm. This only strengthens my point, that there is no such thing as "non-practical" science.
[QUOTE][B]where does believing we evolved from an ape-like critter get us, that believing we are made in the Image of God does not?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Evolving from a primate does not mean we are not made in God's image anymore than being inflated dust means we are not in God's image. But to answer your question, it brings results (alluding to research again).
[QUOTE][B]Has believing you evolved from an ape helped you design some sort of cure?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Can you name one 20th century medical innovation that was not, at least *tested* on a non-human creature before being used on man?
[QUOTE][B]Atomic Theory is in the present. Testable.
Evolution is in the past. Untestable.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Evolution left fossils and DNA. Therefore it is testable. Also evolution is still occuring today so it is testable in the present as well.
[QUOTE][B]Why can't God have created life as it is -- why can't we still do the same research on the creatures we have alive today?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Simply asking why God didn't make life fixed as it is today is like asking why we aren't made of elephant mucus...it is an irrelevant question because there is no evidence that life is fixed and a tremendous volume of evidence that says it isn't.
We cannot do the same research because then we can't make the assumption that genes are conserved or that their physiology works anything like our own. An assumption, true, but one that all of medicine is based upon, and one that has served us, very, very well.
I guess we could call it another historical precedent in favor of evolution.
[QUOTE][B]Why must common ancestry be the explanation[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Because it is indicated by evidence.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-20-2002 2:15 PM halcyonwaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-21-2002 1:13 PM gene90 has replied

  
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 51 (15853)
08-21-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by gene90
08-20-2002 9:27 PM


quote:
Science is all about nature. Miracles don't have a place here, and the only spot for God is if God is really behind natural laws.
That is a horrible approach to life -- but there is nothing I can do about that.
quote:
But it is relevant to medical research because for research in genomics to be valid long strands of DNA must be conserved and must operate in the same fundamental manners in primates and other mammals as in humans.
If things were designed by the same being, we can make the same assumption.
quote:
Big Oil spends billions on oil exploration. An incorrect (YEC) model brought into the industry could cause economic ruin for their investors and could cripple entire nations.
An incorrect model would do some harm, but give YEC's some time to create a full model
quote:
The very lifeblood of the current global economy is "pumped" by the Old Earth Evolutionist geological paradigm.
Care to give an example on a prediction made? By the way... what is the mainstream explanation for coal bed and oil resevoir formation concerning how the plant/animal matter came to be in such a large mass all together -- if in other places we find that fossils are rare and spread out?
quote:
Can you name one 20th century medical innovation that was not, at least *tested* on a non-human creature before being used on man?
God... I never thought I'd go to PETA for information.
quote:
Many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, among them anesthesia; bacteriology; germ theory; the stethoscope; morphine; radium; penicillin; artificial respiration; antiseptics; the CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and between smoking and cancer; the development of x-rays; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS.
Anyhow, you just asked for one example, so I gave it. BUT... I disagree with Peta that animals are bad for testing. I think we can make the same observations and create a model based on one common designer.
quote:
Evolution left fossils and DNA. Therefore it is testable. Also evolution is still occuring today so it is testable in the present as well.
Not really. Imagine if all we had was a crime scene, and never had a way to test our ability to re-enact it.
I concede on a couple points I didn't respond to. BY The way... I spent an hour responding on this board, and as much fun as I'm having, I can't use up that much time I'll probably just lurk once a week... take care everyone.
David
[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 08-20-2002 9:27 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by gene90, posted 08-21-2002 9:05 PM halcyonwaters has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 51 of 51 (15873)
08-21-2002 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by halcyonwaters
08-21-2002 1:13 PM


[QUOTE][B]That is a horrible approach to life -- but there is nothing I can do about that. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
If it's so horrible, then science just isn't for you. There is no way to find out if there is any supernatural realm so science is limited to natural explanations.
[QUOTE][B]If things were designed by the same being, we can make the same assumption.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No you can't, actually. If God wanted to He could rewrite everything on a whim just to make sure everything in the new organism's genome is optimal. In the common descent scenario we know that most genes are conserved. This also includes HERVs that the organism was obviously *not* created with.
Why would God recycle genomes, and if you knew nothing about the genetic code, what would make you assume that He did? And if He did, and if the genome is the defining trait of a species, how is having the same DNA as a primate philosophically different from being descended from one? There is no difference that I can see.
[QUOTE][B]An incorrect model would do some harm, but give YEC's some time to create a full model [/QUOTE]
[/B]
I see you're joking around but I want to reemphasize that the age of the Earth and Earth history are serious business that can't be tampered with just because somebody wants to take a particular text literally. I can think of other examples as well. In Washington state a school board was informed that they had built an elementary school over Mt Rainier lahar deposits and that if another eruption occured the school, and everyone in the valley, would be killed in in seconds. The estimated time to evacuate the valley was around two minutes from the start of an eruption. Now, if that schoolboard was filled with YECs who thought it was a Flood deposit as opposed to Uniformitarianists who thought the past might repeat itself, that school might still be there. After all, I'm not aware of any laws that require buildings to be moved to accomodate geological hazards.
[QUOTE][B]Care to give an example on a prediction made?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't have a background in oil exploration but basically they drill in salt traps along the perimeters of extinct seas that had very long (evolutionary) timescales to deposit. Also, regions that, according to continental drift were once tropical (fast YEC tectonics wouldn't give enough time to produce any oil from these) for coal.
[QUOTE][B]what is the mainstream explanation for coal bed and oil resevoir formation concerning how the plant/animal matter came to be in such a large mass all together -- if in other places we find that fossils are rare and spread out?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Fossils per se aren't rare and spread out. *Some* fossils are very rare but I can jump in my truck and take a two minute drive to some Cretaceous outcroppings that are loaded with marine fossils and foraminfera.
To answer your question regarding oil, oil reservoirs today are not the peat bog oil formed in, they are under geologic traps for oil, under salt domes, various folds in strata, and certain faults. According to the current models there are traces of oil that move through strata in certain places that then are slowly trapped in these reservoirs.
Coal, of course, doesn't move. Coal veins represent buried peat swamps. This is supported by the common presence of abundant fern and horsetail fossils in nearby layers and sometimes petrified stumps and roots. Depending on the conditions after burial, coal pits can be great fossil hunting grounds. I see nothing odd about this concentration of fossil fuels and materials, they were there millions of years ago and they are there now.
[QUOTE][B]I never thought I'd go to PETA for information. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Forgive me, I didn't think you'd go that far. But do you think your examples were tested and licensed by government authorities *without* the benefit of animal testing? The stethoscope, sure, but I believe that is pre-20th century.
[QUOTE][B]BY The way... I spent an hour responding on this board, and as much fun as I'm having, I can't use up that much time I'll probably just lurk once a week... take care everyone.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Fair enough. Right now this is the only thread I'm active in for the same reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-21-2002 1:13 PM halcyonwaters has 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