Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life)
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 65 (96178)
03-30-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


2) A life form was discovered on Mars?
I think they'd adamantly claim that it was contamination from one of our probes.
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory?
They'd claim that was proof that it took intelligence to create life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 03-30-2004 8:40 PM Charles Munroe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 39 by Myron, posted 08-18-2004 9:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 65 (96826)
04-01-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
04-01-2004 10:48 PM


Nothing could survive the vacuum and coldness of space that long to get to Mars.
Tardigrades could, I think. If what they say about them is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 65 (96839)
04-01-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:10 PM


If the answer is no then I have to ask what "would" weaken the evolutionist position?
The discovery that the offspring of organisms bear no similarity to their parents genetically. That would more or less disprove evolution, I think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:10 PM Milagros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 65 (96976)
04-02-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:56 PM


You're going to tell me that if the offspring of a bear was a gorilla that'll disprove evolution?
Yes. That would probably disprove evolution. It certainly would require a major new theory if bears regularly gave rise to gorillas.
Any "one" thing?
Well, consider what the theory says. It says that, since genotype affects phenotype, and environment selects phenotypes, then an organism's genome will tend to change in response to environment. You could disprove that by observing that genotype has no relation to phenotype, or that natural selection doesn't ever happen, or that organisms don't pass on genes to their offspring, or any number of other observations.
Don't mistake a theory that hasn't been falsified yet for one that isn't falsifiable. There are conceiveable situations that could prove evolution false. It's just that none of them ever occur.
So how "un-similar" are we talking about here?
Totally dissimilar. No shared genes whatsoever. That would disprove evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:56 PM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 65 (97421)
04-03-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Milagros
04-03-2004 1:59 AM


Notice, that even IF such a thing did happen and disprove evolution, the idea of a Creator being behind the phenomena would NOT be the first thought or conclusion but rather the idea that a "new" theory is required instead.
Right, because that's how science works - we propose natural explanations for natural phenomenon. That's the scientific methodology, and that's what scientists do when observation contradicts their models - they make new, better models.
Which is why I was insinuating that it "wouldn't" disprove evolution.
Evolution is not the position that God didn't create organisms. It's the position that the diversity of life on earth is the result of random mutation and natural selection.
A bear giving rise to a gorilla in one generation disproves that. It doesn't disprove that natural explanations can't account for natural phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't prove that the God of the Bible exists.
If you want God to be included in a scientific theory, then you're going to have to prove that God exists and is avaliable to scientific examination. Otherwise no scientific model can ever be expected to take God into account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Milagros, posted 04-03-2004 1:59 AM Milagros 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