Evolution and the Origin of Life

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by 5stringJeff, Oct 19, 2005.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The evolution advocates on the board constantly harp on Intellegent Design, saying that it's not a scientific theory because it's not independently verifiable or repeatable. So I decided to apply that to evolutionary theory as it pertains to the origin of life. As you know, Darwinists claim that all beings have one common ancestor, which was a single celled organism. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the origin of life, "no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")." So, using the pro-evolutionist's logic, we can make the following argument:

    1. Evolution claims that life began when basic organic components randomly combined to create a living being.
    2. No one has been able to replicate basic organic components randomly combining to create a living being; this process is not independently verifiable or repeateable.
    3. Therefore, evolution's claims about the origin of life are not good science.
     
  2. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    Do you believe that God created the single cell organism from which all of life grew, or that God created birds and bears and bees and people and monkeys?
     
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    A one-celled organism 'growing into' all forms of live doesn't make scentific sense...it's MORE likely God created everything individually.
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    not that i disagree with you....but at one point science could not prove the earth was round yet it turned out to be so
     
  5. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    To you it is...
     
  6. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    and to you it is not.....each is as likely as the other....both are taken on faith
     
  7. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    exactly.
     
  8. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    see clay, everyone should just listen to us.

    bet you "scientists" here would never admit that the core starting point of their theory is a leap of faith same as creationism or id
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Harmageddon
    Offline

    Harmageddon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    242
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +7
    Actually, that is not entirely, but mostly correct.
    Good science involves the creation, through observing and imagination, of a hypothesis to explain the observed.
    hypothesis = a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
    Taken from google, define: hypothesis
    Now, it is common practice to create two opposing hypothesy to describe the observed event, that contradict one another in absolute terms. Then, through experimentation, one would have to choose the better hypothesis and lift it to the status of a theory. That is, until an alternative hypothesis comes along.

    For evolution in it's primal state, that would basically put the "hypothesis of evolution" versus the "hypothesis of creation".

    But since this is such a controversial subject, that is rooted deep in humanity's history of mythology and religion that precedes science by thousands of years this has not been objectively stated.

    To say that the religious explanation of the world around us is a mere "hypothesis" has resulted in the sacrifice of many a medieval scientist. It is just not accepted as such, since religion is rooted not only in the phylosophical, but also in the emotional aspect of humanity.

    That is I think a major reason why there is so much controversy still.
    Science has therefore, since an alternative was not to be debatable at all, let alone provable, chosen to lift the hypothesis of evolution to a theory.

    And although you are correct in stating that there is no direct repeatable proof of the most critical steps involved, a lot of information has been gathered that does not disprove the hypothesis, and in fact seems to support it. As for the first living organism, that is yet to be experimentally verified.
    As for "micro-evolution" as opponents call it, that is, speciation within a certain genus - all the different species of dogs created by man from the ancestral wolf for example - do fit into the hypothesis of evolution.

    We're not there yet, and both hypothesis still hold to this day.
    Keep an open mind, is my advice. And remember that even if evolution is to be proven in all its facets, that still does not exclude the existence of a creator.
     
  10. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    I would rep you for this fantastic sentiment, but I need to spread it around a little more.

    The only thing I would add is that most religous people think they have the question answered, and then move on with life saying "God did it."

    The scientists want to eliminate the leap of faith, and work to do it.
     

Share This Page