Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 106 of 251 (654014)
02-26-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Portillo
02-26-2012 3:50 AM


Re:
Ok, so it's the ToE that we're talking about.
Would you like to answer how it would be changed if God or anything else creted the first life?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Portillo, posted 02-26-2012 3:50 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Portillo, posted 02-27-2012 1:34 AM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 107 of 251 (654015)
02-26-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Portillo
02-25-2012 9:52 PM


Re:
Please try to wrap your brain around this idea.
When you ask for a towel, you expect a cloth towel, but when you ask for a paper towel, you expect a towel made out of paper. The same holds when you ask for either a napkin or a paper napkin, though paper napkins have become so much more common that saying "napkin" has become more commonly recognized as "paper napkin". BTW, since adjectives, adverbs, and adjectival nominatives are generally termed modifiers, I will refer to such names as "paper towel" as being modified by the word "paper", or by whatever modifies them. If you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, then for frak's sake learn a foreign language! Because, as Lessing noted, we do not know our own language until we have studied a foreign one (das heit, "Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde lernt." -- eg, I learned immensely more about English grammar through two years of high school German than I had ever learned in 12 years of English classes).
Similarly, catsup was a Malaysian fish sauce which had never included tomatoes since they're a New World vegetable (well, actually a fruit, even though most people don't realize that simple fact). So the preparation that includes tomatoes is modified to "tomato catsup", because it is something different. Though since most Americans and probably Europeans as well only know tomato catsup, they've taken to just calling it "catsup".
So then, Portillo, try to wrap your brain around this. If we normals are talking about stellar evolution, then we will say "stellar evolution". If we are talking about cosmic evolution, then we will say "cosmic evolution". If we are talking about chemical evolution, then we will say "chemical evolution." And if we are talking about social or cultural or linguistic or whatever other kind of evolution, then we will apply the appropriate modifier! IOW, we will (or at least should) always be as unambiguous as possible in our wording. But since the central idea that is under discussion in the entire so-called "creation/evolution controversy" is biological evolution, when we say "evolution" then we are talking about biological evolution! If we were talking about any other conceivable kind of evolution, then we would apply the appropriate modifier to identify unambiguously what we are talking about!
My next line was "What part of that do you not understand?" But then I caught myself. That is something that would be meaningful to a normal, but then you are not a normal, are you? NOTW, right? "Not of this world". I have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see", the mystery-religion catchwords that have survived in Mark. Normals are of this world and aware of reality. But you fancy yourself "not of this world" and are similarly detached from reality. You even pride yourself on not understanding reality; watch out for being prideful! Because through that you blind yourself to reality, to the truth, and embrace a blatantly obvious lie.
The simple truth is that when we normals are talking about evolution without any modifiers, then we are talking about biological evolution, Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution. If we were to talk about anything else, then we would tell you that we are talking about something else. Pure and simple.
And the simple truth is that you not-normals ... OK, let's restrict that to creationists, and further restrict that to the YEC, "creation science" types, since many if not most true creationists in existence (ie, believers in a Divine Creator) also accept evolution ... are applying an entirely different meaning. Normals are talking about a specific scientific idea, while creationists are talking about so much more, a far-reaching all-enveloping philosophy and more. Normals' response is properly "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?" And the creationists' "response" is to gloat at the confusion that they have caused. Some, such as Buz, actually mark that confusion as a victory. And just what is your response? The same? Any way that you would care to try to justify it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 9:52 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 108 of 251 (654021)
02-26-2012 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
02-25-2012 10:25 PM


Re:
We're talking about the exact same phenomenon, except with different terms. That's why it's so funny. Portillo has made another bullet for us to fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 10:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 109 of 251 (654096)
02-26-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
02-22-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Analogies
Tangle writes:
Taq writes:
The theory of evolution no more depends on the ultimate origin of life than our understanding of chemical interactions depends on the ultimate origin of matter.
I suppose we'd better get this one on the table from the start because it's a deal breaker.
Those that say that evolution is not true because it doesn't incorporate how life started MUST give a credible answer to this question
How would the ToE be affected if a pair of replicating molecules got here by any of the different ways we can think of? Including:
1. God did it
2. A meteor brought it
3. Aliens planted it
4. Alphabet primordial soup cooked it up
5. any other idea
(It will be necessary for the creationist to put aside their belief that evolution isn't true and treat this as a puzzle in logic and reason.)
Though some may, I don’t think every creationist claims that evolution isn’t true because it doesn’t incorporate how life started, I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
I’ll gladly stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong, but the adamant separation of evolution from abiogenesis seems to be a very recent occurrence only. I know of no evidence that indicates that any scientist from the early/mid 20th century had any reason to separate them. At that time, the simplest forms of life were thought to be simple lumps of protoplasm, and the primordial soup formation of life from non-life was thought to be an evolutionary process that was just around the corner from being solved. It has only been in the last few decades that science has learned that a naturalistic, evolutionary formation of life from non-life is speculative and loaded with gaps, and cannot come close to fulfilling the criteria that science has set for ID to become science. That is the reason there is so much recent effort to separate evolution from abiogenesis. Again, if anyone can show me authentic documentation from as late as 1953 (the date of the Miller/Urey experiment) that shows scientists falling all over themselves to separate evolution from abiogeneis as they are today, then I stand corrected. But I won’t be holding my breath.
Now, to repeat this question;
How would the ToE be affected if a pair of replicating molecules got here by any of the different ways we can think of? Including:
1. God did it
2. A meteor brought it
3. Aliens planted it
4. Alphabet primordial soup cooked it up
5. any other idea
I can’t say that it would be affected, and don’t claim that it would be. But the reason I don’t mind seeing that question asked is because I never see the following question being answered by evolutionists;
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
After all, this statement is always made, and agreed to, by evolutionists; (from another thread)
quote:
Until Intelligent Design presents the Designer and the method/model used by that Designer to influence evolution it should only be mocked, condemned, disparaged, challenged, questioned and illuminated as the con job it really is.
How would ID be affected? Put-downs of ID aren’t an answer, any more than put downs of evolution are an answer to your question. Can anyone explain the evolutionist double standard to me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2012 1:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 02-26-2012 9:14 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 9:43 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 117 by Omnivorous, posted 02-27-2012 12:30 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 02-27-2012 1:38 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2012 4:01 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 123 by subbie, posted 02-27-2012 10:31 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 124 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2012 11:30 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 02-27-2012 2:31 PM marc9000 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 251 (654099)
02-26-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
quote:
Until Intelligent Design presents the Designer and the method/model used by that Designer to influence evolution it should only be mocked, condemned, disparaged, challenged, questioned and illuminated as the con job it really is.
How would ID be affected? Put-downs of ID aren’t an answer, any more than put downs of evolution are an answer to your question. Can anyone explain the evolutionist double standard to me?
What double standard? What you quoted is simply a fact, the truth, an example of honesty.
Note that the quote starts with the term "Until" and then lists the requirements that ID will need to satisfy before being considered as an explanation.
There is no double standard there at all.
There is no put down.
ID, like the Creationism it really is, has simply NEVER presented evidence or any model/method other than "insert miracle here".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 9:50 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 111 of 251 (654102)
02-26-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


persecution issues again?
Hi marc9000, still carrying that conspiracy theory baggage around?
But the reason I don’t mind seeing that question asked is because I never see the following question being answered by evolutionists;
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
Curiously, I can't recall that question ever being asked. I can recall such concepts being discussed in the presentation of ID as a "get out of creationism" card (ie that because the designer is not identified it could be a god, aliens or space debris falling on earth). This is usually presented as a wink-wink nudge-nudge attempt to palm the pea by the proponents, that then, amusingly, go on to describe how their god is the designer.
To answer you question, no, it would not make the slightest difference to whether or not ID was actually science rather than a philosophical\religious dog and pony show -- that would actually be determined by ID proponents actually doing science (rather than yammering away with pseudoscience and complaining that they weren't admitted to the club of science because of discrimination).
... I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable ...
Curiously, science doesn't care if you find science believable, it cares whether or not there is objective evidence to test the hypothesis, validate it, falsify it, and whether it can make useful predictions for further tests.
Evolution has done this for 150+ years, so if you don't find the results of those tests believable, it is of little concern to science. You can lead a hoarse creationist to water.
If, however, you can falsify evolution then by all means step forward and do so - because then science will pay attention.
What is of concern to scientists, is when people put beliefs before evidence, especially when this affects the public school curriculum in general, and science classes in specific.
How would ID be affected? Put-downs of ID aren’t an answer, any more than put downs of evolution are an answer to your question. Can anyone explain the evolutionist double standard to me?
There is evidence for evolution. Over 150 years of accumulated evidence from scientific testing involving fossils, genetics and the observable world. There has not been one instance where evolution was shown to be false.
Where is the comparable evidence for ID (er ... any evidence for ID)?
Without producing a similar mountain of evidence, it should be painfully clear to any impartial observer that there is no double standard here.
Enjoy.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 10:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 112 of 251 (654105)
02-26-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
02-26-2012 9:14 PM


Re: Analogies
What double standard?
The two claims are perfectly comparable. Evolutionists claim that evolution doesn't need to identify origins of life, and IDists claim that ID doesn't have to identify the designer. If one is true, the other is true. If one is false, the other is false. Evolutionists claim that one is true, and the other is false. It's a double standard - I can't make it any clearer than that.
What you quoted is simply a fact, the truth, an example of honesty.
No, it's only your assertion, if you can't show how the study of ID would be affected if the designer was God, or space aliens.
Note that the quote starts with the term "Until" and then lists the requirements that ID will need to satisfy before being considered as an explanation.
Yes I know, the "list of requirements", a list that no other scientific study has ever been required to pass before it became science. If one scientific study has to pass a list of requirements, and another scientific study (such as the SETI Institute) does not, then we have still another double standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 02-26-2012 9:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 02-27-2012 9:43 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 129 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2012 4:22 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 113 of 251 (654108)
02-26-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
02-26-2012 9:43 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
Hi marc9000, still carrying that conspiracy theory baggage around?
No, just addressing double standards. I leave the hysterical cries that studying ID equals hog-tying and dragging atheists into church to others.
Curiously, I can't recall that question ever being asked.
Well I'm asking it now. Am I somehow too late?
I can recall such concepts being discussed in the presentation of ID as a "get out of creationism" card (ie that because the designer is not identified it could be a god, aliens or space debris falling on earth). This is usually presented as a wink-wink nudge-nudge attempt to palm the pea by the proponents, that then, amusingly, go on to describe how their god is the designer.
Just like abiogenesis is presented as a wink wink nudge nudge attempt to declare that there is no God, and that we'll somehow figure out naturalistic abiogenesis, if given enough time and public money?
Curiously, science doesn't care if you find science believable, it cares whether or not there is objective evidence to test the hypothesis, validate it, falsify it, and whether it can make useful predictions for further tests.
And it can't do that with abiogenesis, and that's why references to, and even entire threads are started, to shout over and over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis dont' have a thing in the world to do with each other.
Evolution has done this for 150+ years, so if you don't find the results of those tests believable, it is of little concern to science. You can lead a hoarse creationist to water.
And in year one of those 150 years, it didn't have a list of requirements to pass.
If, however, you can falsify evolution then by all means step forward and do so - because then science will pay attention.
That doesn't have one thing to do with this thread's topic. But I know you'll get a whole list of pretty green dots for saying it.
Without producing a similar mountain of evidence, it should be painfully clear to any impartial observer that there is no double standard here.
It doesn't have anything to do with amounts of evidence. Even if the amounts of evidence are lopsided, the double standards still exist. Unless of course, you can show how ID would be affected depending on who the designer is. I'm still waiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 9:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 10:27 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 121 by Warthog, posted 02-27-2012 5:32 AM marc9000 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 114 of 251 (654110)
02-26-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by marc9000
02-26-2012 10:07 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
Hi marc9000
Just like abiogenesis is presented as a wink wink nudge nudge attempt to declare that there is no God, and that we'll somehow figure out naturalistic abiogenesis, if given enough time and public money?
Except that science has already been done in the field of abiogenesis, hypothesis have been tested and some have been discarded. Much has been done in the area of replicating molecules (there are now several known self-replicating molecules).
And it can't do that with abiogenesis, and that's why references to, and even entire threads are started, to shout over and over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis dont' have a thing in the world to do with each other.
Including the one you started on abiogenesis ....?
Curiously though, hypothesis ARE being tested. Results ARE being obtained. Hard to conceive how that is possible if what you say is true. I can point you to a thread that discusses some of them: see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II). Some of the people involved in those studies even posted on it.
And in year one of those 150 years, it didn't have a list of requirements to pass.
And amusingly, once again, if what you say is true, that there was no "list of requirements to pass" ... they somehow actually were passed: Darwin in year one of those 150 years listed objective evidence and tests of his theory in his book on the origin of species.
We've had this discussion before marc9000, where you agreed that abiogenesis met the standard for science, even ones found in pre-Darwin dictionary definitions, but could not show that ID did, nor could you show that the definition of science changed substantially in order to exclude ID -- as you had claimed.
Do you want me to pull them out and reference them?
Enjoy.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 10:07 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 11:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 115 of 251 (654113)
02-26-2012 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
02-26-2012 10:27 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
Except that science has already been done in the field of abiogenesis, hypothesis have been tested and some have been discarded. Much has been done in the area of replicating molecules (there are now several known self-replicating molecules).
Because it's already in the public realm of science, and is of great interest to atheists. 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. They are in control of science.
marc9000 writes:
And it can't do that with abiogenesis, and that's why references to, and even entire threads are started, to shout over and over and over again that evolution and abiogenesis dont' have a thing in the world to do with each other.
Including the one you started on abiogenesis ....?
Uh no, the one I started didn't have a thing to do with a separation of evolution and abiogenesis.
Curiously though, hypothesis ARE being tested. Results ARE being obtained. Hard to conceive how that is possible if what you say is true.
It's not hard to conceive at all if it's part of science, is of great interest to atheists, and was not required to pass entrance tests to become science.
And amusingly, once again, if what you say is true, that there was no "list of requirements to pass" ... they somehow actually were passed: Darwin in year one of those 150 years listed objective evidence and tests of his theory in his book on the origin of species.
And even more amusingly, 'Origin of Species' was NOT peer reviewed material, something that's always required of ID! Still another double standard.
We've had this discussion before marc9000, where you agreed that abiogenesis met the standard for science, even ones found in pre-Darwin dictionary definitions, but could not show that ID did, nor could you show that the definition of science changed substantially in order to exclude ID -- as you had claimed.
Do you want me to pull them out and reference them?
No, that was a different discussion, it much more directly compared abiogenesis and ID than this thread does, and your personal opinions/summarizations of what I actually said mean little. I'd rather you didn't post something completely off topic and get this thread closed down. I'd rather you or anyone would answer two simple questions I've posed above, once again they are;
1) How would studies of ID be affected depending on the identity of the designer, and
2) Where is documentation that shows that the scientific community was trying to separate evolution from abiogenesis before 1953?
Question 1 mirrors the question that's the topic of the thread, and question 2 is also very much on-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 10:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 02-26-2012 11:17 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 125 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-27-2012 1:09 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 02-27-2012 2:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 116 of 251 (654117)
02-26-2012 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by marc9000
02-26-2012 11:04 PM


Re: persecution issues again?
Because it's already in the public realm of science, and is of great interest to atheists. 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. They are in control of science.
Just because a majority of profound scientists are atheists does NOT mean "atheists control science". DATA controls science.
And even more amusingly, 'Origin of Species' was NOT peer reviewed material, something that's always required of ID! Still another double standard.
Is origin of species a paper? Nope. It's a book. No one is requesting "darwin's black box" to be peer reviewed. Just because Darwn's book contained more facts than any ID anything doesn't mean it needs to be peer reviewed.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 11:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 117 of 251 (654120)
02-27-2012 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
I’ll gladly stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong, but the adamant separation of evolution from abiogenesis seems to be a very recent occurrence only. I know of no evidence that indicates that any scientist from the early/mid 20th century had any reason to separate them.
Darwin himself formulated the origin of life and the evolution of diversity as separate questions. Will that do?
At that time, the simplest forms of life were thought to be simple lumps of protoplasm, and the primordial soup formation of life from non-life was thought to be an evolutionary process that was just around the corner from being solved.
And not long before that, from Aristotle until Pasteur, even religious folk thought life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter.
So? In the early sixties, we thought we'd have George Jetson's rocket car and robotic maid. We don't--but so what?
It has only been in the last few decades that science has learned that a naturalistic, evolutionary formation of life from non-life is speculative and loaded with gaps, and cannot come close to fulfilling the criteria that science has set for ID to become science.
Evidence for this bald assertion? And further bald assertions won't spontaneously generate evidence.
Again, if anyone can show me authentic documentation from as late as 1953 (the date of the Miller/Urey experiment) that shows scientists falling all over themselves to separate evolution from abiogeneis as they are today, then I stand corrected. But I won’t be holding my breath.
Again, Darwin.
I never see the following question being answered by evolutionists;
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
You've attempted a list, but it still boils down to aliens or gods, and, ultimately, aliens beg the question through regression.
If ID is necessary to explain the presence of life on earth, then it is also necessary to explain the presence of life in the universe. So we arrive, more tortuously but no less surely, at unevidenced religious claims.
So the thought experiment can most honestly be answered thus: neither the study of ID nor that of the ToE would be changed by considering your collapsing laundry list of origins.
The evidence for evolution would remain formidable, and the claims of Intelligent Design would remain both evidence-free and clearly religious in nature.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 118 of 251 (654124)
02-27-2012 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tangle
02-26-2012 4:15 AM


Re:
quote:
Ok, so it's the ToE that we're talking about.
Would you like to answer how it would be changed if God or anything else creted the first life?
God has nothing to do with evolution. Ask the authorities on evolution, Dobzhansky, Simpson, Huxley, Mayr, Gould, Futuyma, Sagan, Dawkins, Provine etc. Evolution is a purposeless, unguided, undirected, natural process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJM8EdYZpls

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2012 4:15 AM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 119 of 251 (654125)
02-27-2012 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
quote:
Though some may, I don’t think every creationist claims that evolution isn’t true because it doesn’t incorporate how life started, I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
Firstly, if you don't make that claim perhaps you should leave it to those who do to answer the question. Secondly your uninformed and heavily biased opinions aren't exactly worth much.
quote:
I’ll gladly stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong, but the adamant separation of evolution from abiogenesis seems to be a very recent occurrence only.
As at least one other person has already pointed out, it goes back as far as Darwin himself.
quote:
I can’t say that it would be affected, and don’t claim that it would be.
Then you agree that the truth of abiogenesis is actually irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
quote:
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
There doesn't seem to be any serious study of ID to be affected. Can you point to anybody building a positive theory of ID, instead of attacking evolution ? There's plenty of such work in evolution and abiogenesis but ID seems to be somewhat lacking, offering nothing but speculations and not doing much work to take any of them beyond speculation.
But let's deal with the idea of extraterrestrials engineering life. Young Earth Creationism - in fact all creationism - would be out. That's one major change - and probably enough of one to lose most of the big names (most seem to be Creationists - mainly of the Old Earth variety).
Miracles would be out, so all the guff about naturalism could be thrown away, as would the desire to redefine science.
Looking for archaeological remains of the extraterrestrial presence would be in.
We could try to work out what the extraterrestrials actually did. because they would be restricted to naturalistic methods.
In fact it looks as if ID could actually stand a chance of being scientific if it endorsed the extraterrestrial visitor hypothesis and started serious work on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 120 of 251 (654134)
02-27-2012 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
02-26-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.
From a non-scientist, non-believer in evolution point of view, I can accept that as a reasonable statement.
I think you need to ask yourself though, what you will think when science starts building life from chemistry and has some credible models for how life started? To be honest, I don't think it would make a difference to what you feel about evolution.
Even is science came up with proof (not really a realistic possibility), I think your mind would simply push the problem further back into the creation of all matter. And so on.
How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;
*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea
It wouldn't be affected at all. Does that help?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 02-26-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by marc9000, posted 02-28-2012 8:20 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024