[Capuchin]

Of course, the theory of gravitation explains how gravity interacts, but does not explain how matter generates this force. Is gravity unacceptable too?

[mountain_man]

Originally Posted by Credendovidis :

So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?

The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

I guess until you see that there are things in life (many) that Can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you would never be able to have enough faith to believe in a God that created the world and you and I. There are so many things that surround us everyday that are beautifully designed and orchestrated that in my belief could have only come via God, but that is my faith and I will always put that to the test over proof established by less than perfect men.

[michealb]

But less than perfect men are the ones who came up with your faith. There is no object proven to come directly from god telling you how to worship just less than perfect men writing things down a 1000 years ago.

[asking]

It's an interesting fact that engineers are a large proportion (majority, i think) of scientifically qualified people who deny evolution and believe in intelligent design... Maybe because they design things all day.

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

And of course there is the matter of creativity. I remember an engineering student at my university telling me that the most employable engineers were C+ students, meaning that the bulk of mid level engineering jobs didn't demand a lot of ambition or talent, just basic competence.

And no offense intended to Credendovidis, who obviously DOES understand science. :)

[mountain_man]

but less than perfect men are the ones who came up with your faith. There is no object proven to come directly from god telling you how to worship just less than perfect men writing things down a 1000 years ago.

Sure the Bible was written and documented by less than perfect man BUT one has to believe (like I do) that the Bible was "God breathed or God inspired" Again one has to take that purely on faith.

And this was just not one man writing the entire Bible and having God speak to him but MANY different people over many years were all things tie into one another and do not contradict each other but support the accounts across large periods

[asking]

I think it would be useful in discussions of evolution to distinguish between the evidence that evolution happened versus: (1) origin of life questions (which has been done here) and (2) the way in which evolution occurs (including but not limited to mechanisms). After reading these threads for a while, I see that creationists tend to go for one or the other of these latter two issues--both of which are hard to explain to novices--rather than the fact of evolution itself--which is much easier to explain.

Increasingly, I have been trying to focus on, "How do we know evolution occurred?" The answer is that we know evolution happened because evolution is literally recorded in the fossil record. To my knowledge, no one has offered another explanation for the pattern of fossils that shows a clear narrative of events that tells the story of evolution. (I have asked for an alternate explanation from creationists and received no answer so far.)

Second, and this is a separate line of evidence, you can construct a likely family tree of all these organisms based on their physical anatomy (as Linnaeus did). Third, that family tree AND the fact of organisms being related is confirmed by molecular data--whether DNA or protein.

None of this has anything to do with (1) the first cells or (2) whether evolution is always gradual or can be fast, whether macroevolution is at the species level (it is considered to be by biologists) or at the level of genera or higher (as Sassy argues). In other words, most of the creationist arguments against evolution are pitched at details about HOW evolution happened and ignore the entire body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that it must have happened.

One last point about Gaps: It's unclear to me why creationists keep harping on the gaps in the fossil record. So there at gaps. What of it? Gaps neither undermine the idea of evolution nor lend support for Creationism. I think it's important to get away from the idea that the gaps are a problem that needs to be explained away. Gaps are totally expected from everything we know, not only about the processes by which fossil beds are laid down, but also about how evolution itself happens. It would be strange if there were not gaps!

[inthebox]

Originally Posted by Credendovidis :

So now you attack - instead of evolution - abiogenesis, and demand objective supported evidence for a scientific thesis that explains the origin of the first cell, while you yourself (and none of your theist peers) can provide any objective supported evidence for your own religious creation claim?

The abiogenesis thesis makes sense, seems highly possible, is based on available resources and conditions at that time, and does not require an invisible unproven to exist entity that is claimed to be able to create an entire universe in 6 days only, but that requires multiple human assistance in doing everything (from writing, composing, copying, translating, to distributing) in the process of preparing "his" own manual for humanity.



·

I find your excuses for not providing evidence for the things you claim are scientific, like abiogenesis or evolution, amusing at the very least, and intellectually dishonest more so.
;)

You believe in things like evolution or abiogenesis without the physical evidence you demand. :confused:

Again, I ask; where are the scientificly reproducibe experiments taking the basic elements like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon and coming up with a functional piece of DNA or RNA? :confused:

Then once you have accomplished that where did the amino acids to make proteins come from? The ribosomes? The cell membrane? :confused:

I ask you for evidence of what you believe and you deflect answereing the question asked by going to your pet thesis: that there is no ohysical evidence of "god," short of God coming down and touching you. Now bottom line, I agree with you. It takes faith and belief.

You have to remember this is a religious forum. To those who believe in God, science belittles. God is relational. God is beyond science, cannot be contained within the boundaries of science, and I BELIEVE is the creator of science, and physical laws, and what you may believe is "nature" or "natural selection."

[inthebox]

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

And of course there is the matter of creativity. I remember an engineering student at my university telling me that the most employable engineers were C+ students, meaning that the bulk of mid level engineering jobs didn't demand a lot of ambition or talent, just basic competence.

And no offense intended to Credendovidis, who obviously DOES understand science. :)

The problem with engineers is that answers need to be ceratain and repeatable.
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof.
The best evolution can do is provide retrospective studies without knowing the original factors involved.

Michaelb provided Lenski's work with E Coli - to become citrate + took 44000 generations and 20 years of a rigorously controlled manmade environment, and they still don't know exactly which generation or how it came about.

Here is a scientist, once atheist, who sees the physical evidence and comes to a different conclusion. Time 2006, he has a discussion with Dawkins, you might find interesting, of course dawkins is not a geneticist.

Francis Collins (geneticist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[asking]

I find your excuses for not providing evidence for the things you claim are scientific, like abiogenesis or evolution, amusing at the very least, and intellectually dishonest more so.
;)

Again, I ask; where are the scientificly reproducibe experiments taking the basic elements like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon and coming up with a functional piece of DNA or RNA? :confused:

This is an unreasonable demand or argument. Just because researchers cannot make a cell from scratch does not mean that it cannot happen, let alone that it could never have happened. There are lots of things that cannot easily be made from scratch (basic elements such as nitrogen and oxygen), which we nonetheless know are made every day. For example, plants synthethesize tons of sugar every day using carbon dioxide, water and the energy from the sun. You, inthebox, could not do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

Meanwhile, researchers ARE working to synthesize artificial cells, called "protocells." When they eventually succeed--whether in 3 years or 10--the argument, unreasonable as it, will be even more meaningless.

You have to remember this is a religious forum.

This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.

To those who believe in God, science belittles.

I would argue that this is an extreme fundamentalist position--that science by its very nature "belittles"--a position not shared by the vast majority of believers.

Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.

[asking]

[QUOTE=inthebox]
Evolution poses enormous mathematical improbababilities. and lack of proof./QUOTE]

Then, if you reject all the evidence that is totally accepted by biology for the last 100 years, offer an alternative explanation for the pattern of organisms in the fossil record. Organisms go from simple bacteria without nuclei, to eukaryotic cells (with nuclei and other internal "organelles") to simple multicellular organisms, to more complex ones.
Everything pretty much starts in the sea as aquatic life, then, much later, different groups appear one by one in land environments. From fish to amphibians, to reptiles that make eggs that can hatch on land, to birds and mammals.

You NEVER find birds before fish. You NEVER find wolves before the first bacteria.

Explain this pattern in another way. Evolution Does explain this pattern, by the way, and the pattern is further confirmed by all biological information known, including biogeographic data, geophysical data, genetic and protein data. All of it tells the same story of evolution. So, really, the burden is on you to propose an alternate hypothesis that explains ALL these facts--as evolution does--and I guarantee you'll get a Japan Prize (the highest prize in biology--there's no Nobel Prize for biology).

It's fine with me if you believe God did it and don't believe in evolution. That's a personal choice. But it's not fine to say there's no evidence for evolution when the opposite is true: which is that there's no evidence that doesn't support the idea that all species came into existence through evolution. Even Sassy concedes that species evolve. :)

[Tj3]

And you saying you have a scientific background means nothing on the internet except to try to falsely give weight to your posts.

It seems that you feel a need to use ad hominems to bolster your position. It doesn't.

[Tj3]

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain where the first life came from.

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.

But there's plenty evidence for evolution itself --the evolution of millions of complex species from simpler forebears--in other words, bacteria, then photosynthetic bacteria, then eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus, mitochondria, and other "organelles" like our cells), yeast cells, plants, simple one-celled "animals" (protists), and animals of every kind. It's all laid out in the fossil record like a story book and the same story is confirmed by genetic studies. You can look up the specific evidence in any introductory biology textbook, so there's no need for people to list it here over and over. I've summarized the evidence at length on this forum, so you can look that up too.

Similarity does not mean that they evolved. That is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.

[Tj3]

I guess I have trouble with the idea that an engineer is by definition "scientifically qualified." It seems to me there are lots of different kinds of engineers, who vary not only in things like civil, electrical, and computer, but also in whether they do any kind of science at all, versus simply designing simple systems or structures day after day. (Which there is nothing wrong with, but it's not scientific research. Being good at math does not make someone a scientist.)

Perhaps you are not aware that engineers must have e scientific training also.

[asking]

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.

Nothing? Only to you! :)

Biology as a discipline definitely doesn't agree with you! The theory of evolution has a huge amount of explanatory power. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, although that's unquestionably an interesting question. But I agree that the origin of life is a more compelling question philosophically than the origin of every species of plant or animal that has ever lived. All the same, MOST people find it interesting to learn about how dinosaurs and sharks came into existence millions of years ago, to say nothing of how modern plants and animals like daisies and roses, horses and wolves came into being.

Similarity does not mean that they evolved. that is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.

Um. I didn't say that.
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution. That story is backed up by comparative studies of every description, whether those comparisons are in genes, proteins, or anatomy, to name a few. It doesn't matter whether you study, plants, insects, fish, or mammals. All these studies give the same answer--evolution. They never give the answer that it couldn't have been evolution, and that's been true for 100 years.

As far as science is concerned, there's no going back to a Biblical interpretation of Genesis. That's a strictly religious interpretation and has no scientific standing whatever. Genesis obviously HAS important religious standing to people like yourself and within some circles of people. But it's not science.

It's important to understand the difference between science and religion. What you are talking about is religion, which is another kettle of fish, and not subject to rules of evidence anyway, so there's no need to prove or disprove anything you say as long as you agree it's religious in nature. But if you DO want to discuss Creationism and call it science, then you become subject to the rules of scientific evidence, which means the burden is on you to provide an alternate hypothesis (to evolution) that explains all the same evidence in a consistent way. It's my opinion that if that were possible, it would have been done by now and made it into a scientific paper of CONSIDERABLE note.

[inthebox]

This is an unreasonable demand or argument. Just because researchers cannot make a cell from scratch does not mean that it cannot happen, let alone that it could never have happened. There are lots of things that cannot easily be made from scratch (basic elements such as nitrogen and oxygen), which we nonetheless know are made every day. For example, plants synthethesize tons of sugar every day using carbon dioxide, water and the energy from the sun. You, inthebox, could not do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

But photosynthesis can be proven with grade school experiments.

Plant A gets water, co2, and sunlight
Plant B gets water, co2, and dark

measure which one grows.

I'm no chemist, but how do you think meth or plastic or fas is made? Basic elements are extracted then combind to make a finished product.

Meanwhile, researchers ARE working to synthesize artificial cells, called "protocells." When they eventually succeed--whether in 3 years or 10--the argument, unreasonable as it, will be even more meaningless.

You are relying on FAITH. "When" is not reality, at least in the present moment. I can say "WHEN" cows ddevelop we can have surf and turf :)


[QUOTE = ASKING]
This is incorrect and has been covered elsewhere recently. This is not the Christianity forum and, as I understand it, topics related to the interface between science and religion are permitted. Please consult admin Curlyben if you doubt this.
[/QUOTE]

It is a religious forum and I find it ironic ;) the evangelical fervor by which some argue that :

1] God does not exist
2] That evolution is believeable


[QUOTE = ASKING]
Since technologies of every description cannot come into being without science, and you are expressing yourself by way of one of the most sophisticated technologies every invented, it is hypocritical to argue that science belittles rather than enlarges your world.

[/QUOTE]



I said that science belittles or is beneath God, since I believe He is the creator of all, including what we believe to be science.

Science, in fact, gives evidence to the wonders of God's creation.

For anyone, who thinks evolution is believeable, take a cell and / or molecular biology course and ask yourself, how did the complexity of a single living cell come about.

Then take a genetics course and ask yourself how did genes for various organ systems come about? From a single cell.

[inthebox]

Then the theory is dead in the water. Unless life can start, the rest of the theory means nothing.



Similarity does not mean that they evolved. that is an assumption. A common designer is also a possible source of similarity in design.

A very good point

[michealb]

It's only a good point if you don't understand biology or evolution.

[Credendovidis]

It's only a good point if you don't understand biology or evolution.

Or logical thinking !

:D

·

[Tj3]

Biology as a discipline definitely doesn't agree with you! The theory of evolution has a huge amount of explanatory power. Evolution isn't meant to explain the origin of life, although that's unquestionably an interesting question. But I agree that the origin of life is a more compelling question philosophically than the origin of every species of plant or animal that has ever lived. All the same, MOST people find it interesting to learn about how dinosaurs and sharks came into existence millions of years ago, to say nothing of how modern plants and animals like daisies and roses, horses and wolves came into being.

Nice story - but keep in mind that I have looked into the evidence behind it, and the mounds of assumptions.

Um. I didn't say that.
I said the pattern of the fossil record tells a specific story of change over time that is consistent with the theory of evolution.

Even Darwin said that the fossil record was the largest problem or weakness in his theory. And the weakness in the fossil record remains today.

[michealb]

Right and since Darwin's time we have had 150 years of fossil discoveries and all fossil discoveries since Darwin's time has pointed towards evolution. It's no wonder you don't understand it if your still looking at 150 year old information.