Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Science?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
66 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2005 - 08:20 PM

Complex in what sense? That it's composed of too many carbon substituents? That it's "too long"? Favorable chemical interactions between molecules is indepent of whether the product contains a lot or few carbon centers.


What makes you think that DNA is a favorable chemical reaction? I'm unaware of any claims that DNA is forming outside of living cells.

They are not. They have been observed to be replicating outside of the cell, as is done very often in techniques used in microbiology. As an example, PCR involves using the self-replicating mechanism of DNA to reproduce extra copies of DNA so that they can be studied, yet the DNA is replicated outside of the cell, but with presence of the required proteins. The only difference is that
PCR uses denaturation to emulate the effect of the DNA helicase, but the presence of the cell is not required for DNA helicase to function. Many other techniques involving DNA probes like Southern, northern and western blotting are also done in vitro.


Artificial manipulations of DNA are not relavent to this discussion. Can you provide an example of DNA that self-replicates in nature outside of the living cell?

I seem to recall that some creationist, you or someone else claimed that DNA does not live. As I've explained before, DNA does replicate both inside and outside of the cell. The only criteria that should be considered is the presence of the necessary proteins and conditions. Whether or not DNA functions is independent of whether it's inside or outside of the cell. The cell membrane is simply a phospholipid bilayer that is selectively permeable to substances inside and outside of the cell, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the proteins inside or outside the cell.


DNA is not alive. IMO, DNA essentially serves one purpose, and that's to store all of the information needed for all of the other parts of the cell to work. A cell copies the DNA during division, and that the cell has the enymes to unzip it so to speak is no small miracle. If you can mimick that in the lab, it means nothing to the debate.

Urey-Miller experiment is actually well accepted. If it were fraudulent, then scientists wouldn't continue to make further experiments similar to those of Urey-Miller.


The Urey-Miller experimens are fine for what they are, but what is often not mentioned in their discussion is the lack of chirality of the amino-acids that were produced.

We did not make the conclusion that cells self organize because amino acids can. Amino acids or catalysts can self organize and affect other reactions or processes that will allow a cell to form.


What's your defintion of "organized"? Just how did the 1st cell form? Is that a statement from observation, or whishfull thiking?

Terry

#42 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2005 - 08:32 PM

To admit that a process is too complex or unlikely and stop further investigations is unscientific. In the case of the fake fossil, nobody was admitting that the fossil was too complex or unlikely.


I'm not a defender of ID, but I don't think this is totally true. Complexity is not the only issue. Functionality is also part of the problem. If the characteristics of design are apparent, and no natrualistic process can be acounted for it, then there is no reason not to assume that design is not a valid argument, especially when the charachteristics are known not to exists in nature, i.e. be the result of natural process.

Its also a straw man argument to suggest that anyone is claiming that further investigation should be stopped to understand how things work. In the end, that's all science can truely demonstrate is how things work. How they came about will always be speculation, and if we are going to speculate in the public schools, then different points of view should be given equal time since prefference of one over the other is government enforced religion. Even,....., if the religion is humanism.

"Was an intelligent being involved in creation of life?" is not a valid question to be asked in science because the "intelligent being" is considered supernatural. Science does not deal with the supernatural, and not dealing with the supernatural does not make it a disadvantage. Otherwise, it is similar to asking mathematics to explain metaphors in literary analysis.


That is a philosophical decision, and nothing more. As previously stated, if its a possibility that an intelligent being created life, and it is, and you adpot a phiolosophy that does not allow you to investigate it scientifically, then you are willfully ignoring possible scenarios, and that is frankly spoken "willful ingorance", no disrespect intended.....

Terry

#43 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 01 December 2005 - 08:34 PM

So because science does not deal with the supernatural is the answer to everyting always science?

#44 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 02 December 2005 - 07:54 AM

I'm not a defender of ID, but I don't think this is totally true.  Complexity is not the only issue.  Functionality is also part of the problem.  If the characteristics of design are apparent, and no natrualistic process can be acounted for it, then there is no reason not to assume that design is not a valid argument, especially when the charachteristics are known not to exists in nature, i.e. be the result of natural process.

But by admitting that a natural process cannot create life, you are appealing to the supernatural. As said before, the supernatural is beyond the scope of science. You may believe that it is a better explanation all you want, but an unpredictable, unobservable and unmeasurable supernatural element cannot be studied in science.

Its also a straw man argument to suggest that anyone is claiming that further investigation should be stopped to understand how things work.  In the end, that's all science can truely demonstrate is how things work.  How they came about will always be speculation, and if we are going to speculate in the public schools, then different points of view should be given equal time since prefference of one over the other is government enforced religion. Even,....., if the religion is humanism.

So why is it you still can't explain to me how the designer works? Why is the designer not observable? Because he/it/she's supernatural? How can investigation continue if we cannot observe the designer?
As for education, that's not how the education system works. Such a speculation is based on science, and not religion, but I also understand that many people here, possibly including you do not agree that evolution is a science. You should see that it's not how you view evolution, but how the education system views evolution--if they think it's a science, it will continue being taught.

That is a philosophical decision, and nothing more.  As previously stated, if its a possibility that an intelligent being created life, and it is, and you adpot a phiolosophy that does not allow you to investigate it scientifically, then you are willfully ignoring possible scenarios, and that is frankly spoken "willful ingorance", no disrespect intended.....

Terry

View Post

To investigate "scientifically", one would require a physical observation. The requirement of physical observation is not an independent philosophy; it IS science. Simply by suggesting an intelligent designer, you are already adopting a philosophy that does not allow you to investigate it scientifically because such a designer is not observable. It's not out of ignorance, as you may disagree with me, but it is because we can say nothing about it. You're asking us to do something about something in which we know nothing about, or do not know how to go about doing it, according to the criteria of science.

#45 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 02 December 2005 - 08:35 AM

What makes you think that DNA is a favorable chemical reaction?  I'm unaware of any claims that DNA is forming outside of living cells.

That is because DNA would have likely formed during Prebiotic Earth, which has much different conditions from that of today's. DNA is formed from phosphodiester bonds and hydrogen bonding. The double helix structure, as explained before, is stabilized by both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions, Van der Waals interactions, as well as hydrogen bonding.

Artificial manipulations of DNA are not relavent to this discussion.  Can you provide an example of DNA that self-replicates in nature outside of the living cell?


Yes they are. If DNA could not self-replicate outside of the cell, then PCR would not work. Furthermore, I've looked into the subject more, and I've found that HDA also works like PCR, except it uses real helicase instead, and it's faster too. In other words, it's even closer to DNA replication in nature than PCR is. The lab conditions are not much different from the natural environment. They don't look the same, but in terms of pH, temperature and pressure, they're pretty much the same. The whole point of the lab is to emulate a natural environment as much as possible, and manipulate only one or two factors in an attempt to narrow down the possible factors that will affect a process or thing that is being studied.

DNA is not alive.  IMO, DNA essentially serves one purpose, and that's to store all of the information needed for all of the other parts of the cell to work.  A cell copies the DNA during division, and that the cell has the enymes to unzip it so to speak is no small miracle.  If you can mimick that in the lab, it means nothing to the debate.

DNA does not have only one purpose. It's "purpose" is to self-replicate and act as a template for production of RNA, leading to production of proteins. You might be able to go from home to work without a map, but a cell cannot function without DNA. The functions of protein synthesis and cell reproduction are integrated into the structure of DNA, so it's not just like a map, it also has the tools. Someone was suggesting that it's impossible for DNA to replicate outside of the cell. So I suggested that it can be done, by looking at the structure and function of DNA. What basis do you have that DNA cannot self-replicate outside of the cell? If you limited yourself to believing only what you see immediately, you cannot begin to have good analyses in science.

The Urey-Miller experimens are fine for what they are, but what is often not mentioned in their discussion is the lack of chirality of the amino-acids that were produced.

Chirality is being researched right now. Just because one experiment didn't mention it or study it in depth does not mean other scientists wouldn't do that.

What's your defintion of "organized"?  Just how did the 1st cell form?  Is that a statement from observation, or whishfull thiking?

Terry

View Post

I've implied that you or Springer mean "self-organized" to be a molecule that is capable of forming itself. I wasn't going to post this because Springer already mentioned it, but formation of the amino acids and catalysts lead to polymers, replicating polymers, hypercycle, prebionts, and eventually, bacteria. While the formation of amino acids and catalysts could be concluded from the Urey-Miller experiment, and that the formation of polymers, the hypercycle and prebionts after it were proposed, they are being tested.

#46 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 02 December 2005 - 03:46 PM

quote=Angelus-Tenebrae,Dec 2 2005, 08:35 AM

That is because DNA would have likely formed during Prebiotic Earth, which has much different conditions from that of today's.

Obviously, for abiogenesis to have even the remotest possibility of working, you have to invoke unknown conditions of the prebiotic earth. Unless you can state specifically what those conditions might be, you don't have a theory.

If DNA could not self-replicate outside of the cell, then PCR would not work. Furthermore, I've looked into the subject more, and I've found that HDA also works like PCR, except it uses real helicase instead, and it's faster too. In other words, it's even closer to DNA replication in nature than PCR is. The lab conditions are not much different from the natural environment. They don't look the same, but in terms of pH, temperature and pressure, they're pretty much the same. The whole point of the lab is to emulate a natural environment as much as possible, and manipulate only one or two factors in an attempt to narrow down the possible factors that will affect a process or thing that is being studied.

If laboratory conditions aren't much different than the natural environment, why don't you see DNA self-replicating outside the confines of a cell?


I've implied that you or Springer mean "self-organized" to be a molecule that is capable of forming itself. I wasn't going to post this because Springer already mentioned it, but formation of the amino acids and catalysts lead to polymers, replicating polymers, hypercycle, prebionts, and eventually, bacteria.

That is pure speculation and has no basis in science. No one has demonstrated any possible way that a complex molecule such as DNA could self organize. You've presented very tenuous arguments about self replication, but you haven't given us a clue as to how DNA came to be in the first place. Natural selection cannot be invoked because you don't have preferential survival of non-living matter. We're talking about blind molecular interactions. Regardless of how many steps you might suppose, the probability is zero. You state that there may be many pathways to life. If this is so, why did every form of life supposedly descend from a single common ancestor that required 500 million years to evolve?

While the formation of amino acids and catalysts could be concluded from the Urey-Miller experiment, and that the formation of polymers, the hypercycle and prebionts after it were proposed, they are being tested.

What did the Urey-Miller experiment demonstrate? That a racemic mixture of amino acids can be formed under laboratory conditions. It proved nothing more than this. Evolutionists are so accustomed to extrapolations that they've lost any semblance of objective science.

#47 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2005 - 05:29 PM

But by admitting that a natural process cannot create life, you are appealing to the supernatural. As said before, the supernatural is beyond the scope of science. You may believe that it is a better explanation all you want, but an unpredictable, unobservable and unmeasurable supernatural element cannot be studied in science.


So, in the end, if natural process cannot create life, then science is a waste of time as far as that question goes.

So why is it you still can't explain to me how the designer works? Why is the designer not observable? Because he/it/she's supernatural? How can investigation continue if we cannot observe the designer?


I've pointed out to you, and IMO, sufficiently explained why its not necessary to explain the designer. The universe at some point is not explainable. Science assumes an uncaused 1st cause that cannot be explained, its just metaphysical instead of supernatural, but they are both metaphysical in nature.

As for education, that's not how the education system works. Such a speculation is based on science, and not religion, but I also understand that many people here, possibly including you do not agree that evolution is a science.


You are correct here. The use of evolution in the sense of origins science is certainly a faith based system of perception about the past.

To investigate "scientifically", one would require a physical observation. The requirement of physical observation is not an independent philosophy; it IS science. 


Not just a physical observation, but a cause-and-effect relationship. This is where goo-to-you evoution is not science, because it has never been observed, and there is no observational science behind it, only speculation.

Simply by suggesting an intelligent designer, you are already adopting a philosophy that does not allow you to investigate it scientifically because such a designer is not observable.


Again, we do not have to investigate the designer. Who the designer is up for debate once its established that nature was designed.

By ruling out a designer, you are not allowing yourself to consider rational possibilities.

It's not out of ignorance, as you may disagree with me, but it is because we can say nothing about it. You're asking us to do something about something in which we know nothing about, or do not know how to go about doing it, according to the criteria of science.


According to the criteria of science, you cannot test the past so I would say you are rather ecclectic about what you think can be scientific and what cannot. In the end, you have just chosen a materialistic view of the uinverse, and think that scientific data must compleltly reside in this paradgimn.

Materialism is not all there is. Information is the key to life, and evolution being a materialisitc dogma has no chance to investigate it, so you are trying to understand the universe with blinders on.

Terry

#48 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 02 December 2005 - 07:58 PM

quote=Angelus-Tenebrae,Dec 2 2005, 08:35 AM
Obviously, for abiogenesis to have even the remotest possibility of working, you have to invoke unknown conditions of the prebiotic earth.  Unless you can state specifically what those conditions might be, you don't have a theory.


A prebiotic Earth is warmer, has a reducing atmosphere, and more lightning. What does that mean to you? Do you know anything about chemistry to make a good interpretation of it?

If laboratory conditions aren't much different than the natural environment, why don't you see DNA self-replicating outside the confines of a cell? 

Because DNA in nature is not necessarily with the presence of proteins. Viruses have genetic material, either DNA or RNA, but they lack the necessary proteins to replicate themselves. Furthermore, it would have been possible in prebiotic Earth conditions because those proteins existed back then. They don't exist like that now either because they exist in cells, or because a change in the environment prevented further formation of proteins.

That is pure speculation and has no basis in science.  No one has demonstrated any possible way that a complex molecule such as DNA could self organize.  You've presented very tenuous arguments about self replication, but you haven't given us a clue as to how DNA came to be in the first place.  Natural selection cannot be invoked because you don't have preferential survival of non-living matter.  We're talking about blind molecular interactions.  Regardless of how many steps you might suppose, the probability is zero.  You state that there may be many pathways to life.  If this is so, why did every form of life supposedly descend from a single common ancestor that required 500 million years to evolve? 


It's being tested. There are biochemists and chemists who study the properties of proteins and the possibility of self-organization.
To determine how DNA could have formed, we would have to look at its structure. DNA consists of five-carbon sugars (deoxyribose), a phosphate group, and bases. With the exception of the phosphate group, the other two components are largely made of carbon and hydrogen atoms, as well as oxygen and nitrogen. A covalent bond is required to form the nucleoside from a base and a deoxyribose sugar, as well as phosphodiester bonds between the phosphate group and the deoxyribose sugar, at the 3' and 5' ends. A phosphodiester bond is a strong covalent bond, and both the covalent bond in forming the nucleoside and the phosphodiester bond can be formed with the help of enzymes. So if DNA were not self-organizing at this time, we know that enzymes and catalysts are, and would exist. Phosphodiester bonds are commonly created during replication and transcription.
The probability of one in 10^40000 was calculated by Hoyle, who did not know enough about biology to make an accurate calculation. In other words, his argument based on that probability is a strawman, and he made poor assumptions to arrive at that number.
I have once asked about why life is dependent on one common ancestor, but according to cladists, genetic evidence from existing organisms suggests that there is one. It's possible that two or a few organisms could have existed from a prebiotic Earth, but it's also possible that they did not survive. Perhaps they were poorly adapted, or could not compete with other organisms. Furthermore, not every single organism of the same species has the exact same DNA sequence. The only criteria for a species is if they can reproduce with each other. In a genetic analysis, scientists would usually be looking for regions in which variation is noticed.

What did the Urey-Miller experiment demonstrate?  That a racemic mixture of amino acids can be formed under laboratory conditions.  It proved nothing more than this.  Evolutionists are so accustomed to extrapolations that they've lost any semblance of objective science.

View Post


I'm not suggesting that the Urey-Miller experiment is the only experiment that supports abiogenesis. And I'm not suggesting, and it shouldn't be suggested that the Urey-Miller experiment proves anything, because it's never the aim of science to prove. The only one making the conclusion that the Urey-Miller is the one experiment that "proves" abiogenesis is you.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this in the last post, but I'm not really sure of the certainty of abiogenesis because I know less about it than I do about evolution. It sounds promising, but it hasn't progressed as much on the level that evolution does. I'm not going to say which method of the origin of life is more likely than the other; I'll wait to see the reports and peer reviews first.

On another note, it seems we've shifted towards abiogenesis instead of evolution being a science, so if anyone wants, feel free to shift the last few posts under the abiogenesis thread.

#49 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 02 December 2005 - 08:35 PM

So, in the end, if natural process cannot create life, then science is a waste of time as far as that question goes.

Science makes no assumption that natural processes cannot create life. If that's what your theory says, then clearly, they are not compatible. If you do believe that science is a waste of your time, do you think there's any reason to call ID a science?

I've pointed out to you, and IMO, sufficiently explained why its not necessary to explain the designer.  The universe at some point is not explainable.  Science assumes an uncaused 1st cause that cannot be explained, its just metaphysical instead of supernatural, but they are both metaphysical in nature.


If the universe is purely natural, then it is explainable. The problem is that we will not be able to explain everything because there can be an infinite number of things to discover in this universe. You may even call that the hypothesis of science: that if the universe is purely natural, then it is explanable on the basis of scientific experiments. And like the study of science, it does not stop, and will continue progressing. It's fairly analogous; there are parts of the universe we do not yet understand or can explain, or are testing, just as a theory is never complete, and we do not know everything there is to know about any one scientific theory.

You are correct here.  The use of evolution in the sense of origins science is certainly a faith based system of perception about the past.

Evolution says nothing about origin, so it is irrelevant.

Not just a physical observation, but a cause-and-effect relationship.  This is where goo-to-you evoution is not science, because it has never been observed, and there is no observational science behind it, only speculation.


Actually, it has. Macroevolution is defined as the level of evolution where speciation occurs. Speciation is when a new species is formed because a group of an existing species becomes isolated from the original population, either physically, temporally, or behaviorally, and the new group can no longer reproduce with the original population. This has been observed in flies and other insects with short lifespans.

Again, we do not have to investigate the designer.  Who the designer is up for debate once its established that nature was designed.


The part of ID that does not work is that you are admitting to the existence of a supernatural designer. It's not that we don't know anything about the designer; we do know that the designer is supernatural. In other words, ID fails to meet the requirements of science because it relies on a supernatural element. That the designer is supernatural is not independent of ID.

By ruling out a designer, you are not allowing yourself to consider rational possibilities.
According to the criteria of science, you cannot test the past so I would say you are rather ecclectic about what you think can be scientific and what cannot.  In the end, you have just chosen a materialistic view of the uinverse, and think that scientific data must compleltly reside in this paradgimn.


It is rational in science to rule out things that do not meet its criteria. Since the supernatural does not meet the criteria of science, and the designer is supernatural, it is rational to rule out the designer.
According to the criteria of science, the past can be tested. It has been done all the time in forensic sciences. If that did not work, we should be no better than those medieval governments that allow arbitrary persecutions of people. Science may choose a materialistic view of the universe, but that does not mean that the individual cannot. One can be Christian, agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Jewish or any other religion under the sun, and still study science or be a scientist.

Materialism is not all there is.  Information is the key to life, and evolution being a materialisitc dogma has no chance to investigate it, so you are trying to understand the universe with blinders on.

Terry

View Post


Not knowing, and accepting that one will not know everything or anything is key in my life. What I think you're saying is that you think science shouldn't be limited to materialism, and that it should dwell on other things as well, but the only reason science works is that it has a systematic and methodological way of seeing the universe. It works on the things we know that exists because they are like good clues. If there was no matter that existed, or was not observable, how do you propose we go about studying something? It's less arbitrary to assume that an observable, physical object exists than some supernatural element, which may or may not exist.
As much as I like science, I'm not dismissing the possiblity that any supernatural element exists, or that even a God, or spiritual realm exists. I simply have no way of knowing that they exist.

#50 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2005 - 09:20 PM

Science makes no assumption that natural processes cannot create life. If that's what your theory says, then clearly, they are not compatible. If you do believe that science is a waste of your time, do you think there's any reason to call ID a science?


I've never made any comments about ID. I just believe that scientific data fits the Bible.

Actually, it has. Macroevolution is defined as the level of evolution where speciation occurs. Speciation is when a new species is formed because a group of an existing species becomes isolated from the original population, either physically, temporally, or behaviorally, and the new group can no longer reproduce with the original population. This has been observed in flies and other insects with short lifespans.


Be careful how you choose your words here. Claiming observed speciation as evidence of goo-to-you evolution is a gross equivocation.

Whatever your calling speciation, if its observable is also part of creationist theory. Does that make creation a scientific theory?

The part of ID that does not work is that you are admitting to the existence of a supernatural designer. It's not that we don't know anything about the designer; we do know that the designer is supernatural. In other words, ID fails to meet the requirements of science because it relies on a supernatural element. That the designer is supernatural is not independent of ID.


I'm not particularly interested in ID. I only want the truth to be taught about evolution, i.e. all of the problems, and not that since its what "scientists" believe, therefore its the truth....

According to the criteria of science, the past can be tested. It has been done all the time in forensic sciences. If that did not work, we should be no better than those medieval governments that allow arbitrary persecutions of people.


In case your not aware of it, in many cases we are no better..... That's why Texas cut loose 100 or so people on death row a year or two ago.

In any case, this is the heart of the matter, and where I think you've got this to a point I can agree with you.

Origins science is a forensic case. Being a forensic case, its subject to human opinion, which means its not objective scientific study. Its fine for people to speculate all they want about the past, but they should never claim it as "scientific fact", since they do not know were their assumptions, bias, and interpretations may lead them astray. Just examine your own statements, you continually state as fact things that are not known to be true. They have becom real to you despite their potential errors.

Furthermore; once you start considering forensic cases as scientific study, then there is absolutley no reason at all why the case for a creator/designer cannot be considered forensically.

Science may choose a materialistic view of the universe, but that does not mean that the individual cannot. One can be Christian, agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Jewish or any other religion under the sun, and still study science or be a scientist.


Well, that's true to a point, but a child sitting in the classroom does not know better, and that's why evolution in the origins since should not be taught. Its nothing but brainwashing....

Furthermore; Science is not a person with a will, and it does not choose anything. Its is a philosophical study of nature by people.

Terry

#51 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 03 December 2005 - 06:27 PM

I've never made any comments about ID.  I just believe that scientific data fits the Bible.

I'm not saying you did; I was simply asking a question. You may believe that scientific data fits the bible, but science has shown that such events as a global flood are impossible and that the Earth does not "hang" and neither does it have any "pillars". Scientific data cannot be compared with the bible because the bible uses metaphors, and metaphors can be ambiguous. The criteria for what is science and what fits the bible are not the same.

Be careful how you choose your words here.  Claiming observed speciation as evidence of goo-to-you evolution is a gross equivocation.

That is what macroevolution is--evolution at and above the level of speciation. Scientists define the criteria for what macroevolution is; not the creationists.

Whatever your calling speciation, if its observable is also part of creationist theory.  Does that make creation a scientific theory?

How does observed speciation make it a part of creationism? According to evolution, speciation arises from isolation of a population of a species, where reproduction is no longer possible if they meet again, sometime later due to variation. I don't see how that says anything about creationism.

I'm not particularly interested in ID.  I only want the truth to be taught about evolution, i.e. all of the problems, and not that since its what "scientists" believe, therefore its the truth....
In case your not aware of it, in many cases we are no better.....  That's why Texas cut loose 100 or so people on death row a year or two ago.


I was speaking strictly on terms of being able to find a culprit, nothing else. I'm not aware that evolution has any problems. That's why they're not being taught. Unless you're asking us to reveal the fallacies that creationists have of evolution, and the scientists' explanations as to why they're wrong. Berkeley is doing it, and so are some other universities.

In any case, this is the heart of the matter, and where I think you've got this to a point I can agree with you.

Origins science is a forensic case.  Being a forensic case, its subject to human opinion, which means its not objective scientific study.  Its fine for people to speculate all they want about the past, but they should never claim it as "scientific fact", since they do not know were their assumptions, bias, and interpretations may lead them astray.  Just examine your own statements, you continually state as fact things that are not known to be true.  They have becom real to you despite their potential errors.


The observations of natural phenomena and artifacts or evidence in forensics are facts because they exist. The interpretations of them are not necessarily facts. You may make the case that the interpretation is subjective, and it can be. But further testing will reveal whether the interpretation is likely correct or incorrect. By using repeatable experiments, scientists can either increase or decrease the probability that something is likely. Since the experiment can be done by anyone, and not everyone has the same bias or the same amount of biases, the experiments are objective. In terms of evolution, the theory itself is not a fact, but the observations of it are. That is, the fossils we see, the DNA that exists in organisms, the interactions of various organisms with different species--these all exist and are facts. I'm very careful about using the word, "fact" because it is ambiguous. A scientific fact is not necessarily the same as the fact that is casually used. You claim that I state things as being fact, but I do not remember saying such things, besides the observations.

Furthermore; once you start considering forensic cases as scientific study, then there is absolutley no reason at all why the case for a creator/designer cannot be considered forensically.

The observations of forensics themselves are not subjective. Again, there are no observations of a creator or designer.

Well, that's true to a point, but a child sitting in the classroom does not know better, and that's why evolution in the origins since should not be taught.  Its nothing but brainwashing....


That's up to the teacher. There will be teachers who teach evolution with the disclaimer that you do not have to accept it, while others state it as being true. Furthermore, no teacher should make the claim that evolution says anything about origin.

Furthermore; Science is not a person with a will, and it does not choose anything.  Its is a philosophical study of nature by people. 

Terry

View Post

Well, I could have put "have" in place of "choose", if you didn't get my manner of speaking, but now that you understand that science is a study of nature, can you see why ID or creationism, which rely on supernatural creators/designers cannot be considered a science?

#52 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2005 - 09:21 PM

You may believe that scientific data fits the bible, but science has shown that such events as a global flood are impossible and that the Earth does not "hang" and neither does it have any "pillars".


No one has ever proven that a golobal flood is impossible.

That is what macroevolution is--evolution at and above the level of speciation. Scientists define the criteria for what macroevolution is; not the creationists.


1) Creationists are scientists, they are just not bound by materialism, and are not operating with blinders on.

2) If some people want to equivocate, and use speciation as evidence of molecule-to-man evolution, that fine, but whether they call themselves scientists or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and doesn't lend any more credibility to the claim.

3) You gave an example of flies and insects that become genetically isolated from other groups of flies and insects as observable evidence that pond scum can evolve into people. This is a good example of how evolution has damaged the scientific community to accept things as evidence for things they are not.

4) Such equivocation is a violation of forum rules.

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.


Forum Rules

and is not allowed.

How does observed speciation make it a part of creationism? According to evolution, speciation arises from isolation of a population of a species, where reproduction is no longer possible if they meet again, sometime later due to variation. I don't see how that says anything about creationism.


Speciation is required to account for the diversity of life that we see since the flood.

I was speaking strictly on terms of being able to find a culprit, nothing else. I'm not aware that evolution has any problems. That's why they're not being taught.


Then you are certainly a "true believer".

The observations of natural phenomena and artifacts or evidence in forensics are facts because they exist. The interpretations of them are not necessarily facts. You may make the case that the interpretation is subjective, and it can be. But further testing will reveal whether the interpretation is likely correct or incorrect


But never certain, and again, you are not testing anything by forming an opinon based on circumstantial evidence, and circular logic. You are only patting yourself on the back for clever explanations and nothing more.

By using repeatable experiments, scientists can either increase or decrease the probability that something is likely. Since the experiment can be done by anyone, and not everyone has the same bias or the same amount of biases, the experiments are objective.


This is only true for observational science. Origins science cannot be tested emperically, only forensically, i.e. circumstantially.

In terms of evolution, the theory itself is not a fact, but the observations of it are. That is, the fossils we see, the DNA that exists in organisms, the interactions of various organisms with different species--these all exist and are facts.


That's true, fossils and such are facts, but facts are interpreted within a philosophical framework, and do not speak for themselves.

I'm very careful about using the word, "fact" because it is ambiguous. A scientific fact is not necessarily the same as the fact that is casually used. You claim that I state things as being fact, but I do not remember saying such things, besides the observations.


You speak about a prebiotic earth as if you know there was one, when you don't know that.

Terry

#53 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2005 - 09:22 PM

The observations of forensics themselves are not subjective. Again, there are no observations of a creator or designer.


That's a matter of opinion. I see evidence of a creator all around. If you don't see it, its because you choose not to see it, not because its not there.

This is what the Word of God says, and the more discussions I have with evolutionists the more meaning it takes on:

ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Furthermore, no teacher should make the claim that evolution says anything about origin.


Then you should be lobbying against 99% of the text books in the public schools.

Well, I could have put "have" in place of "choose", if you didn't get my manner of speaking, but now that you understand that science is a study of nature, can you see why ID or creationism, which rely on supernatural creators/designers cannot be considered a science?


Because there is no reason not to assume that design is not a characteristic of nature. If design is a characteristic of nature, and it is, then scientific studies are capable of identifying those characterstics, just as they can identify if someone died of natural causes, or if they were helped along by some other means.

Terry

#54 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 04 December 2005 - 09:45 AM

No one has ever proven that a golobal flood is impossible.

In science, no one has to. But scientists have discovered that it is highly improbable for a global flood to occur, for several reasons:
-There's not enough water for a global flood.
-The observed height and depths of the mountains and valleys as we have now could not have formed after the flood.
-There is no evidence to indicate that such a flood occurred. Sediments, noticeable change in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, or hiatus in trapped air bubbles are possible evidences, but they have not been observed.
-Formation of ice caps in Greenland as observed today would not be possible if a worldwide flood occurred.
-All models that depict how the flood occurred have problems because they require lots of energy for the flood to happen. That amount of energy would be enough to vaporize all the water on Earth.

1) Creationists are scientists, they are just not bound by materialism, and are not operating with blinders on.

They are not. Science is the study of nature, even if materialistic, and that's all it was ever meant to be and probably will be. If creationists study the supernatural, then they are not scientists.

2) If some people want to equivocate, and use speciation as evidence of molecule-to-man evolution, that fine, but whether they call themselves scientists or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and doesn't lend any more credibility to the claim.


"molecule-to-man" is kind of ambiguous because you've missed out all the steps in between. Specifically, one single event of speciation won't account for a molecule becoming a man, and that's certainly not what evolution suggests anyways. Instead, many, many events of speciation are happening, and simultaneously. The evolutionary relationship shows that starting from a prokaryote, evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular organisms, radial and bilateral symmetry, diploblastic body plan, triploblastic body plan, notocord and vertebrates, terrestrial organisms, bipedalism and opposable digits occurred.

3) You gave an example of flies and insects that become genetically isolated from other groups of flies and insects as observable evidence that pond scum can evolve into people. This is a good example of how evolution has damaged the scientific community to accept things as evidence for things they are not.


It shows that speciation is possible, and that such a mechanism works, but we didn't arrive at the conclusion of prokaryotes evolving into people. And that was a poor conclusion anyways, because it should be prokaryotes evolving into common ancestors, and generations, and generations of organisms with variation and speciation that later lead to people. We arrived at such a conclusion not only because the mechanism of speciation is possible, but because fossil evidence has shown us the development and diversity in life, and comparisons allow us to make evolutionary relationships, as does genetics, and comparisons of proteins produced in organisms. The problem with most people is that they think we use only one example to show the whole theory of evolution. I have given but one example, but I did not say that it shows the whole theory is correct.

4) Such equivocation is a violation of forum rules.
Forum Rules

and is not allowed.


Let it be clear then, that when I speak of microevolution, I'm speaking of evolution that occurs under the speciation level. That is, the accounting of organisms in a species having variations arising from genetic recombination or mutation, but any member of that population is still the same species. However, this does not mean that all of the species have the same abilities for survival; some will be better than others, depending on which variation they have. Since microevolution is below the level of speciation, it can't say much about how we get diversity in the number of species or different forms of organisms, or if any species have any evolutionary relationships. It may predict what variations are observable or possible.

Speciation is required to account for the diversity of life that we see since the flood.


Such a diversity that we see today cannot account for what happened after the flood. I've already explained that the flood is highly improbable, but speciation cannot occur in only a mere 6000 years to result in the number of species that we see today. It would be possible for the diversity we see today to be a result of speciation from millions of years or more, but 6000 years is nothing compared to millions, or hundred millions.

Then you are certainly a "true believer".

As far as I'm concerned, any argument that any creationist has ever brought up has been debunked. If you can come up with a proper scientific hypothesis to support your theory and design an experiment for it, the scientific community would be more than happy to consider it. Of course, I realize I'm speaking to someone who believes science is a waste of time.

But never certain, and again, you are not testing anything by forming an opinon based on circumstantial evidence, and circular logic. You are only patting yourself on the back for celver explanations and nothing more.


It is not an opinion, it is a prediction and hypothesis. A forensic scientist can make the prediction that a fingerprint belongs to the murderer, but until he tests it, he cannot be certain. Or he can make a prediction that the blood on the floor belongs to the victim, but he cannot be certain until he has the blood sampled, as well as the blood directly from the victim. Are you suggesting that we cannot know these things? That forensic scientists cannot learn anything about the murder through experiments because they weren't there?

This is only true for observational science. Origins science cannot be tested emperically, only forensically, i.e. circumstantially.

Evolution does not say anything about origins. Even so, forensics can make experiments and determine what happened accurately. So can evolution. If traces are left behind in forensics, and they can be analyzed in detail to help us learn what happened, so too can fossils and genetics in evolution.

That's true, fossils and such are facts, but facts are interpreted within a philosophical framework, and do not speak for themselves.


The interpretations of facts in the form of hypotheses are tested. They can be tested in many different ways, and a different number of problems may or may not be found with the hypothesis. You can take it from any angle you want to increase or decrease the probability that the interpretation is correct.

You speak about a prebiotic earth as if you know there was one, when you don't know that.

Terry

View Post

There are ways of knowing what prebiotic Earth was like. They were found from observations like those of the ancient rocks and the mantle.

#55 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:16 AM

That's a matter of opinion.  I see evidence of a creator all around.  If you don't see it, its because you choose not to see it, not because its not there.


What evidence? The assumption that life is too complex to have formed by itself? That assumption by itself is already unscientific, as explained before.
I do not know that such a creator exists. I cannot tell from science. Such a creator can exist as depicted in Deism, or he may not have much to do with evolution, but only the creation of life, or the existence of a spiritual realm. Perhaps a creator is not responsible for a physical world, but perhaps for how consciousness exists, but science cannot say anything about those things.

This is what the Word of God says, and the more discussions I have with evolutionists the more meaning it takes on:

ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

That's if you believe the bible to be true. I do not know that it is correct, and a book telling you something does not make it true. Perhaps that's your religion, and you're entitled to believe that a creator or God exists, but within the study of science, the case for the existence of God is considered supernatural, and is not within the criteria for what is science.

Then you should be lobbying against 99% of the text books in the public schools.


I'm not aware that any text books are claiming that evolution explains the origin of life. Perhaps they mention descent with modification, or survival of the fittest, and perhaps some other simplified ideas, but not necessarily the origin of life.

Because there is no reason not to assume that design is not a characteristic of nature.  If design is a characteristic of nature, and it is, then scientific studies are capable of identifying those characterstics, just as they can identify if someone died of natural causes, or if they were helped along by some other means.

Terry

View Post

Perhaps design can be, but design done by a supernatural being is not characteristic of nature. This is why I hesitate to use the word "design", as in a bat's wings are designed so that it flies with all of its digits. This is because ID proponents often make the mistake of impying that I meant the bat's wings are literally designed by a supernatural designer, when I'm only speaking of the structure of the bat's wings.

#56 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 December 2005 - 01:54 PM

So because science does not deal with the supernatural is the answer to everyting always science?


Interesting way of phrasing it. To answer:
If the universe is 100% naturalistic then the answer is yes.
If there is some supernatural element it has yet to be discovered (provisional no).

I think it very unlikely in these modern days that if a supernatural event occurred, science could not come to the conclusion that a supernatural event occurred, but I hesitate to give a qualified yes to that, as one may also state that the supernatural mechanism is not understood and may yet have a naturalistic source. E.g. were the miracles reported in the Bible to have occurred in modern times one might state that perhaps they may not have been an act of divine will, God could have used a machine that manipulates energy/matter.

Man his tools and science are internal to the naturalistic universe (it’s all inside ‘The Matrix’), One could assume that God is external to this universe and looks in. Thus if science did try to investigate a supernatural event all the tools/machines will show blank e.g. The parting of the red sea should detects no heat, magnetism, anomalous gravity etc

#57 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 05 December 2005 - 10:42 AM

quote=chance,Dec 4 2005, 01:54 PM

If the universe is 100% naturalistic then the answer is yes.
If there is some supernatural element it has yet to be discovered (provisional no).

I think it very unlikely in these modern days that if a supernatural event occurred, science could not come to the conclusion that a supernatural event occurred, but I hesitate to give a qualified yes to that, as one may also state that the supernatural mechanism is not understood and may yet have a naturalistic source.  E.g. were the miracles reported in the Bible to have occurred in modern times one might state that perhaps they may not have been an act of divine will, God could have used a machine that manipulates energy/matter.


I define "supernatural" as a law that man does not understand. God does not practice "magic". He understands and uses laws of the universe. Thus, intelligent design is "supernatural" only in that it is not understood by man's knowlege. Evolutionist likewise believe in "supernatural" laws. They assume that laws exist even though they don't understand them. They assume that life self-organized although they can't explain how. They view life's existence as evidence that it evolved.

#58 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 05 December 2005 - 10:47 AM

quote=Angelus-Tenebrae,Dec 4 2005, 10:16 AM

What evidence? The assumption that life is too complex to have formed by itself? That assumption by itself is already unscientific, as explained before.
I do not know that such a creator exists. I cannot tell from science.


Your life's experience has taught you nature is chaotic and that highly complex objects are created. Thus, your disbelief is because of your religion, .. because of your disbelief in God. It is not an objective analysis of the facts. Even Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist, conceded that nature has the "appearance" of design.

#59 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 05 December 2005 - 11:15 AM

quote=Angelus-Tenebrae,Dec 4 2005, 10:16 AM
Your life's experience has taught you nature is chaotic and that highly complex objects are created.  Thus, your disbelief is because of your religion, .. because of your disbelief in God.  It is not an objective analysis of the facts.  Even Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist,  conceded that nature has the "appearance" of design.

View Post


I don't have any disbelief in God; I'm agnostic. I just do not know that he exists. I arrive at this conclusion because I have no way of observing him. Since I'm not claiming to know of his existence from little or no observation, it is an objective interpretation.

#60 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 05 December 2005 - 11:18 AM

I don't have any disbelief in God; I'm agnostic. I just do not know that he exists. I arrive at this conclusion because I have no way of observing him. Since I'm not claiming to know of his existence from little or no observation, it is an objective interpretation.

View Post

You may not directly observe him, but you can see evidence of His existence.
My contention is that it's intellectually dishonest to deny evidence of intelligent design. You may not believe in a creator, but the evidence is undeniable.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users