What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[AllieBaba]

evolution? just a working theory that can and is constantly tested. the theory is just about proven--- given the limitations of the tools we have at our disposal and our understanding of the science. what is continually tweaked are the minutiae of the theory. intelligent design has nothing to offer but convoluted arguments based a religious bias. arguments that have a conclusion in search of supporting premises.

Pardon..MACRO evolution. The idea that life came from non-life initially.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pardon..MACRO evolution. The idea that life came from non-life initially.

another circle jerk? *sigh

okay, I'll pull mine out and play.

defiine: life

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

a gift

 

[Skeptik]

Pardon..MACRO evolution. The idea that life came from non-life initially.

Definition of macroevolution

macroevolution
From: A Dictionary of Earth Sciences | Date: 1999 | Author: AILSA ALLABY and MICHAEL ALLABY | © A Dictionary of Earth Sciences 1999, originally published by Oxford University Press 1999. (Hide copyright information) Copyright information

macroevolution Evolution above the species level, i.e. the development of new species, genera, families, orders, etc. There is no agreement as to whether macroevolution results from the accumulation of small changes due to microevolution, or whether macroevolution is uncoupled from microevolution.

Definition of abiogenesis:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time.

Indeed, it should not.

If you're going to set yourself the lofty (read impossible) goal of refuting over a century of scientific research, the very least you could do is use the correct terminology.

 

[glockmail]

Quite true, but to prove that someone designed it you 'd have to prove.............that someone designed it. Assumptions don't cut it.

So why are you making that assumption?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So why are you making that assumption?

because there is evidence to support it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Definition of macroevolution




Definition of abiogenesis:




Indeed, it should not.

If you're going to set yourself the lofty (read impossible) goal of refuting over a century of scientific research, the very least you could do is use the correct terminology.

Oh boo fucking hoo.

"What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There's no evidence for macro evolution. Or for abiogenesis.

 

[glockmail]

because there is evidence to support it?

Where?

 

[Care4all]

Quite true, but to prove that someone designed it you 'd have to prove.............that someone designed it. Assumptions don't cut it.

But doesn't everything in science begin with an assumption Diuretic?

Assumptions, is where it all starts imo....a scientist presumes something, then goes out to prove it....he/she begins with a hypothesis, no?

care

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

"What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993)."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

There's no evidence for macro evolution. Or for abiogenesis.

Virus.

 

[glockmail]

But doesn't everything in science begin with an assumption Diuretic?

Assumptions, is where it all starts imo....a scientist presumes something, then goes out to prove it....he/she begins with a hypothesis, no?

care

You will notice a remarkable higher standard of proof required for the divinity argument relative to the evolutionists.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where?

maybe we misunderstand each other?

---

Originally Posted by glockmail:
Just because someone might figure out how it was designed doesn't meant that someone didn't design it.

---

Originally Posted by Diuretic:
Quite true, but to prove that someone designed it you 'd have to prove.............that someone designed it. Assumptions don't cut it.

---

Originally Posted by glockmail:
So why are you making that assumption?


---


Originally Posted by DevNell:
because there is evidence to support it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You will notice a remarkable higher standard of proof required for the divinity argument relative to the evolutionists.

as it should be. we can test evolutionary arguments as they are based on physical evidence.

 

[garyd]

If you succeed you will only have succeeded in proving what Christianity has believed for years that the creation of life requires intelligent input...

 

[manifold]

If you succeed you will only have succeeded in proving what Christianity has believed for years that the creation of life requires intelligent input...

Actually, it wouldn't prove that at all...



...nor disprove it.

 

[garyd]

Well true in some ways I did overstate the case. How about if I rephrase it as that intelligent beings can create life.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you succeed you will only have succeeded in proving what Christianity has believed for years that the creation of life requires intelligent input...

Well true in some ways I did overstate the case. How about if I rephrase it as that intelligent beings can create life.

Christianity has believed that intelligent beings can create life? Really?

At one point in the past you would be facing an inquisition over this idea.

Christianity has believed in witches, gobblins and evil supernatural possessions (still does) and more hooey than I can shake a broom at.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Christianity has believed that intelligent beings can create life? Really?

At one point in the past you would be facing an inquisition over this idea.

Christianity has believed in witches, gobblins and evil supernatural possessions (still does) and more hooey than I can shake a broom at.

They think that God is pretty intelligent, and that he created stuff.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They think that God is pretty intelligent, and that he created stuff.

Why would they think that? Have any of them ever met this God guy?

 

[Diuretic]

So why are you making that assumption?

Just following your reasoning.