You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…
You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]
I’d argue that the entirety of existence is an intellect. Or rather, The Intellect of which we are a finite piece of and is aware of its self.
You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]
I’d argue that the entirety of existence is an intellect. Or rather, The Intellect of which we are a finite piece of and is aware of its self. [/quote]
It’s more appropriate to say that you’d assert that point. An argument implies that you have evidence!
You’re right, this is very interesting. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to strengthen an argument for evolution and it seriously undermines any sort of argument for a spontaneous origin of life by demonstrating the high complexity of “simple” life forms. If anything, this is evidence for intelligent design…[/quote]
I’d argue that the entirety of existence is an intellect. Or rather, The Intellect of which we are a finite piece of and is aware of its self. [/quote]
It’s more appropriate to say that you’d assert that point. An argument implies that you have evidence![/quote]
You’re talking about a subject for which physical evidence is impossible (intelligent design). That doesn’t mean logic cannot be applied. This is the realm of meta-physics and perhaps other branches of philosophy. Intelligent design itself is not science because it cannot be falsified with evidence and goes against the premise that physical existence follows rational laws, rules, patterns, or what have you.
edit: What my previous post was talking is metaphysics related. Intelligent design is something else. Religion or philosophy and is a really nebulous term without appropriate definitions.
You’re talking about a subject for which physical evidence is impossible (intelligent design). That doesn’t mean logic cannot be applied. This is the realm of meta-physics and perhaps other branches of philosophy. Intelligent design itself is not science because it cannot be falsified with evidence and goes against the premise that physical existence follows rational laws, rules, patterns, or what have you.[/quote]
Nonsense on both counts. Physical evidence exists for intelligent design. Just ask the SETI researchers. I am sure that if some sort of message is discovered on mars that claims of intelligent agency will be made implying that we can examine the evidence and conclude that there was an intelligent source. DNA is the ultimate coded message.
And if intelligent design is not science because it can’t be falsified, then evolution isn’t either. At least intelligent design research is conducted in the present. The evolution of (say) whales or horses is not observable, repeatable or falsifiable.
You’re talking about a subject for which physical evidence is impossible (intelligent design). That doesn’t mean logic cannot be applied. This is the realm of meta-physics and perhaps other branches of philosophy. Intelligent design itself is not science because it cannot be falsified with evidence and goes against the premise that physical existence follows rational laws, rules, patterns, or what have you.[/quote]
Nonsense on both counts. Physical evidence exists for intelligent design. Just ask the SETI researchers. I am sure that if some sort of message is discovered on mars that claims of intelligent agency will be made implying that we can examine the evidence and conclude that there was an intelligent source. DNA is the ultimate coded message.
And if intelligent design is not science because it can’t be falsified, then evolution isn’t either. At least intelligent design research is conducted in the present. The evolution of (say) whales or horses is not observable, repeatable or falsifiable.
[/quote]
Science doesn’t just deal with the here and now. It can deal with the past. Look at cosmology, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. Sure, the scientific methods employed are different, but they are scientific. Take a look at those links I gave to Matty. They’re for anyone interested in the philosophy of science, what science is and isn’t, various scientific methods, and the nature of scientific paradigms. Those experiments and the scientific method you used in high school aren’t the only ways to test for something scientifically. Again, if you find a rabbit in precambrian rock, the theory of evolution is false. If you find human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones, evolution is proven false.
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.
Science doesn’t just deal with the here and now. It can deal with the past. Look at cosmology, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. Sure, the scientific methods employed are different, but they are scientific. Take a look at those links I gave to Matty. They’re for anyone interested in the philosophy of science, what science is and isn’t, various scientific methods, and the nature of scientific paradigms. Those experiments and the scientific method you used in high school aren’t the only ways to test for something scientifically. Again, if you find a rabbit in precambrian rock, the theory of evolution is false. If you find human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones, evolution is proven false. [/quote]
The problem with those branches of science that you mentioned is that they rely upon a bunch of untestable assumptions. So you are quite right about the scientific method. Referring to it as “The Scientific Method” , as though there were some universally accepted approach, is problematic.
I find your falsification criteria for evolution to be very naive. This is a theory that explains everything remember. Why are cheetahs fast and sloths slow? Evolution. Why are whales large and goldfish small? Evolution. Why are roundworms round and flatworms flat? Evolution.
The theory is so plastic that contradictory observations are easily explained with the simple addition of another just so story.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
So we should forget the development of all sciences because you think it’s not different from ‘God did it’?
Good scientific theories have unity, fecundity, and auxiliary hypotheses.
Unity- a good theory will have one or a few problem solving strategies that can be applied to many problems
fecundity- means the theory opens up more areas of research. It will raise more questions and assume those questions can be answered without giving up those problem solving strategies mentioned earlier.
This is why I mentioned scientist are working on. It’s actually a multi-discipline approach involving chemisty and biology primarily using the scientific methods of those. If you just say, well God did it, than there’s no point in using the scientific method to study it. Also, absence of evidence and is not the same as evidence of absence.
auxiliary hypotheses- independently testable of of the problem it might solve.
The theory of evolution has all three in spades.
Predictions are made using the theory of evolution and then tested. This has been done through genetics and a pretty decent fossil record with decent dating techniques using the surrounding strata and radiological methods. Auxiliary hypotheses were made and supported evolution.
And of course the theory of evolution has changed over time. So has the theory of gravity. Theories are constantly being pruned and preened to be more fit for making predictions.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Good scientific theories have unity, fecundity, and auxiliary hypotheses.
Unity- a good theory will have one or a few problem solving strategies that can be applied to many problems
fecundity- means the theory opens up more areas of research. It will raise more questions and assume those questions can be answered without giving up those problem solving strategies mentioned earlier.
This is why I mentioned scientist are working on. It’s actually a multi-discipline approach involving chemisty and biology primarily using the scientific methods of those. If you just say, well God did it, than there’s no point in using the scientific method to study it. Also, absence of evidence and is not the same as evidence of absence.
auxiliary hypotheses- independently testable of of the problem it might solve.
The theory of evolution has all three in spades.
Predictions are made using the theory of evolution and then tested. This has been done through genetics and a pretty decent fossil record with decent dating techniques using the surrounding strata and radiological methods. Auxiliary hypotheses made and supported evolution.
And of course the theory of evolution has changed over time. So has the theory of gravity. Theories are constantly being pruned and preened to be more fit for making predictions. [/quote]
And who are you to proclaim what a “good” scientific theory contains? Your list is very convenient for a supporter of evolution.
What about explaining the evidence? Why isn’t that no.1 on your list? Is that because evolution doesn’t do that very well?
No kidding the theory of evolution has those in spades. Without all of the auxiliary hypotheses associated with evolution, the main theory would have had to have been abandoned years ago. Instead, it is the auxiliary’s that chip the blame!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
And I just noticed, you’re talking about abiogenesis. That’s separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t break down if abiogenesis does. And scientists are still working on abiogenesis. This has been discussed in the thread already.[/quote]
It is not separate from evolution. That is a convenient, self serving, excuse served up so that evolutionists can ignore the obvious problem.
[/quote]
No, that is the very real idea of trying to figure out how thinks work without knowing how it started.
You can do physics just fine without knowing where it all came from, the same id true for biology.
You are operating under the assumption that science works similar to religion - it does not.
It is not supposed to provide final answers, it is not supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to provide answers for very specific problems.
How did this whole thing came to be - is one problem…
How does it work now that it is here - is quite another one and incidentally the one the theory of evolution is trying to answer.
If you have a problem with those, than you have a problem with all scientific disciplines and scientific paradigms and I don’t know what else to really tell you.
Also, would you please be more specific. Like what do you mean ‘explaining the evidence’. Be more specific because I have no idea what you’re talking about.
As far as who am I to proclaim what a good scientific theory contains. Thank you for asking. I’ve graduated with a Master of Science degree from a school with a strong environmental science program majoring in environmental science and have studied the nature of science and the natural world and have been an avid lover of natural phenomena for longer than I can even remember.
And by the way, I can’t take credit for those three principles. A very bright man, much smarter than me, by the name of Philip Kitcher who had a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and history from Princeton University who worked very closely with Thomas Kuhn came up with those.
So what are your credentials and who are you to object to those standards?
It’ll be several hours before I respond. I’ve got some z’s to catch.
And how is “scientists are still working on it” any different from “God did it”? That is the epitome of blind faith.[/quote]
To admit that you dont know and probably never will is the epitome of blind faith?
For your reading pleasure:
[/quote]
No. To believe something is true in spite of contradictory observations while hoping that scientists will answer the problem in the future is blind faith.
In this case we have never observed spontaneous formation of life and we have the law of biogenesis to overcome.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:Not attempting to troll here but I genuinely want to know. How do creationists explain dinosaurs?[/quote]A good case can be made that dinosaurs are mentioned plenty of times in the bible. I have not myself done that study with sufficient depth to reliably present it here. I do believe dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with man and have since been driven to extinction by one of several possible causes. One day I may get motivated to really buckle down and study that too. Maybe not. Lotsa other stuff far higher on my list.
[/quote]
If they existed simultaneously surely there would be fossil records of that coexistence. There isn’t.[/quote]
The latest howler I read was that the order of fossils is like it is because dinosaurs couldn’t climb trees during the Great Flood. so they are at the bottom of the sedimentary rocks. Mammals could climb trees so they are higher up and drowned later.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
