by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult
Nor would I expect to be able to. Nor do I think it logical that someone expects me to be able to.
Why is it illogical? You made a pretty specific claim: you gave a date (1950) and a length of time (100 years). It was not illogical for Alan to request a quote. You gave no indication that it was simply a guess on your part.
AlanF.
It doesn't matter "how" these ideas are defined but it is hard to proceed without a definition that can be agreed upon. Maybe definition demands too much precision. Definition is more appropriate to philosophy and logic. Science at the very least needs to "describe" what it is talking about.
So far AuldSoul is struggling to come up with a description. He certainly hasn't been very explicit. Psychotherapists work hard to get people to verbalize their difficulties in clear well stuctured grammar. Often, the problem, once clearly expressed resolves itself. Some call it the "aha" experience. Really, its a "duh-uh" experience.
Small "intelligent design" may keep AuldSoul from being tied to some orthodoxy but it is still a deceptive term because it doesn't change the work of scientists who are investigating origins. As much as they try to avoid it "intelligent" means a god-like entity. The only other alternative is some alien entity and you can be sure they don't want to go there.
To me it is both public-deception and self-deception and its purpose is to justify another agenda altogether.
Unlike Tophat everything I wrote here is off the top of my head although it probably has been stated in one form or another by many others.
At this point I won't bother to comment anymore. It appears "natural" thinking is too slow a process for me. I can't wait for some significantly new idea or argument to emerge. Either AuldSoul will become enlightened or you (AlanF.) will become frustrated and tired.
The short answer is evolutionist don't really know how life originated on this planet. Evolutionist like to take God's WORK and announce to the world..."Lookie here, see this one-celled thing-a-ma-gigy with RNA"...that's how life orginated. They are stealing the work of God. The earth is teaming with life from an intelligent designer and evolutionist want you to believe it got here by chance.
The short answer is evolutionist don't really know how life originated on this planet.
That is right. Evolution isn't about how it originated, anyway. That has been stated many times. Don't know how you missed that. So, i stated it again, just for your benefit.
S
Ps, what was the question?
They are stealing the work God. The earth is teaming with life from an intelligent designer and evolutionist want you to believe it got here by chance.
So where is his trademark? a copyright symbol? Or even just one piece of evidence that it was all designed? Personally when I design something, I make sure my name is all over it.
However you are quite correct to seperate evolution from abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is still a hypothesis albeit one that makes more predictions than 'creation science' does.
As someone has already pointed out, 'creation science' hasn't contributed anything to our society (except maybe cause friction on some forums of course) whereas evolutionary science is saving thousands of lives every year and will carry on doing so. Creation science would predict that bugs procreate according to their kind, so once we have a drug that kills them, no further research would be neccessary. Evolutionary science predicts that we will always be fighting an evolving bug and thus newer drugs will always be needed. I know who I want running drug trials at my local hospital. Creation science would say that we shouldn't mess with 'His' designs. Evolution science says hmmm maybe we can do something about about those faulty genes that could really improve the chances of your unborn child, perhaps we can use gene therapy to help with that previously incurable ailment.
Creation science can only stifle future scientific endeavour, hmmm I appear to have gone off at a complete tangent there! I should post this to a new topic but it's late and frankly I can't be arsed.!
For TopHat’s benefit, scientific definitions of “fact”, “theory” and “hypothesis” can be described as follows:
(taken from The National Academy Press which publishes reports by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council)
“Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted s “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
In other words, the theory of evolution is not going to change or disappear with new discoveries. It is not speculation or merely a guess. Anything additional will merely add to what is already a mountain of proof (including facts, laws, hypotheses having already undergone testing, etc.).
AlanF,
I suppose I should add one other assumption.
[+] Whether capitalized or not, "intelligent design" implies the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence (an intelligence not of earth) in the presence of (and possibly the progression of) life on earth.
This would be true whether or not the extraterrestrial intelligence would be regarded a God, although beings technologically advanced enough to accomplish such design would certanily have been considered Gods by ancient peoples.
I just wanted to be perfectly clear about where I am headed with this, lest someone think I am pulling a fast one. I believe the available evidence makes extraterrestrial sources of life more likely. At the least, such a belief cannot be accused of tending to limit the development of human understanding, or of detracting from human advancements, or even of cause to stop tinkering with genetics.
After all, if our originators were genetics tinkerers and star-travelers, and if we are their progeny, by all means let us follow in their path. How exactly would such a belief be conducive to ignorance, superstition, or serve to abridge human endeavor in any respect?
If you think about it logically, it really is only the humans who have by choice taken religious fervor and used it as a tool to limit and control. There is nothing inherent in belief in a designer that limits one iota of human endeavor. But this is really a sideline comment to the larger discussion in which we were engaged. I will come back to this later, however, because I think the belief in a designer might serve to propel human endeavor, if viewed differently.
Auld Soul: After all, if our originators were genetics tinkerers and star-travelers, and if we are their progeny, by all means let us follow in their path. How exactly would such a belief be conducive to ignorance, superstition, or serve to abridge human endeavor in any respect?
Exactly because the idea is ignorant, superstitious, and adds nothing other than extraneous noise to any human endeavor.
And if our "originators" were self-replicating chemical machines working within standard physical laws, let us follow their path... Oh, wait. We are.
If you have facts of extra-terrestrial existence, let alone involvement, show them. If you have nothing but dramatic scenarios, call them what they are and write (yet more of thousands of similar) stories. If you have nothing but dogmatic suppositions lacking evidence or logic that must be true, start a cult.
Or at least get your own talk radio show.
Dilaceratus
Panspermia is by no means a parsimonious scenario for abiogenesis. I'm not convinced that life couldn't have evolved strictly on Earth, so I'm not adamant about it either way. I do find it interesting though that more and more people who study associated fields are becoming more receptive to panspermia (or variants of it). As you yourself said, its plausible to speculate the introduction of some organic compounds to Earth by extraterrestrial bodies. Going back to an earlier reply of yours, we needn't postulate a Planet Molybdenum. There are molybdenum stars. When they supernova they'd spew out the elements formed within their cores. Comets could have collected those elements (with the higher traces of molybdenum), and other organics, bringing them to Earth. Not to much of a stretch using that explanation for the incorporation of molybdenum in life processes. They were included with the other needed organics brought in. Again not hard proof, but a tantalizing hint of non earthly input.
I personally don't think there is evidence for intelligent design ( You're on your own here AuldSoul ), I don't think AS' position is entirely, without basis or to paraphrase one poster, "I just can't believe it could have happened".
He may be swayed by some bits of information outlining all the uncertainty over having the proper conditions for life arising. Not all sources that say so are from "ID-ots" either folks. Like the following taken from a textbook I used in a 2nd year university biology class. Its found on page 1103 of Molecular Biology of the Gene -4th Ed. (editors: Watson, Hopkins, Roberts,Steiz, Weiner):
The pathways of prebiotic synthesis remain speculative because we have so little definite knowledge about the exact conditions prevailing on the primitive Earth. In fact, many of the proposed prebiotic reaction pathways are mutually incompatible. For example, at the concentrations required to generate sugars in alkaline solution, formaldehyde would react rapidly with the amino groups of both amino acids and nucleic acid bases. Nonetheless, local variations in temperature, chemical composition, pH, and other factorsmighthave permitted incompatible reactions to occur in different places or at different times on the primitive Earth.
Now, that last line does offer a feasible work around to the initial problem. I'll say again I'm not really for or against a striclty Earth based origin for life. However you may have noticed how that scenario doesn't address the next hurdle of how to get those needed components to come together across time and space.
Lets see what more AuldSoul has to say.
The language of science is math. All else is metaphor which gets everybody bogged down in ridiculous discussion.
In evolution we are always standing at the current "END" of all the activity which preceded. Where you stand on the timeline is important.
How you view the "journey" is a matter of interpretive storytelling and the motive of the dialogue constitutes a presupposition.
Process is process.
The imperative is more political than might think.
As humans we are invested in seeing ourselves as a result.
We never think of ourselves as a mere link in an ongoing chain. It is like the phrase : "State of the art" which refers to the best things can possibly be at a moment in time.
But, ideas and self-conception change. Mythology is evidence of man's clinging to a story which "makes sense" of his journey. As things change it is always the NOW which is critic of what once was a different mindset of a different (older) NOW.
We are dealing with preferences in how we choose to explain our value as __end products__.
Creation makes us a singularity, and; the most important of all singularities.
Why would we want to see ourselves as anything other than that? It requires an honest objectivity that is surely nearly impossible for people reared in an atmosphere of theological self-importance.
It comes down to this:
1.The highest intelligence which exists wanted me to be alive and saw fit to offer me the opportunity to continue to exist.
2.I could more easily have not existed. It is mathematically nearly impossible that I'm here and I have little more significance than my own whims.
So our discussion deals more intimately with our view of what importance we have intrinsically than with the actual sifting of data.
T.
