Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[manu1959]

Science does not ask for proof merely the ability to be tested and possibly disproven. The big bang theory is supported by the discovery of the red shift. Primordial soup theory is supported by numerous experiments.

Genesis is also supported, but by religous evidence, one does not test God, it even says so in the Bible. it is not testable but no less viable as a possibility. However it is not science nor should it try to be, to try and make it a science is to eliminate the element of faith.

what about the scientist that say the big bang is crap? and that the scientist of the 50s and 60s were wrong?

which experiment duplicated the creation of life from primodial ooooz? where did the find a sample of the oooz to duplicate the conditions?

 

[manu1959]

Any idea which is rigorously tested through observation will be accepted by scientists.
Are you suggesting we modify science to include ideas which are not testable? What would be the point?
So it took God 6 infinitely long days to create the Earth? What is 6 times infinity? You're not too good with math, are you?
The Big Bang is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence, namely, the observed fact that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from us. This is not "creationism" - this is a theory which is testable and has in fact been tested.

when god created the earth on god's 6th infinitly long day there was now an earth and thus a day as you know it.....you didn't do well in logic or philosphy classes did you......

so you tell me mr almost have a degree and already know it all how long were days before the big bang?

 

[liberalogic]

I don't deny the existence of God, but I struggle with the concept of having an almighty being and how he came into existence. My problem with religion is that it can only take you so far until the questioning ends:

Who put us here?
God put us here.

Who put God there?
God exists outside of space and time and therefore has always existed.

I'm not saying that there is science to back up God's existence (which is why i detest ID), but as an individual I just feel like there has to be more. And I do understand the meaning of faith and its power, but at the same time, it leaves me feeling a bit empty because it doesn't work on a "logical" (shall we say) level.

 

[Nienna]

I'm lazy; I don't want to read back through the 10 pages of posts. But it seems necessary to establish a working definition of the word "science." The debate seems to hinge on whether or not ID can be considered "science." So what is our definition of "science"?

 

[manu1959]

This is why ID is not a scientific theory. There is no way to gather evidence, which can be communicated to other scientists, which would either show it to be true or not.

Furthermore, I fail to see what it has to do with God. ID doesn not even propose that a God must exist. Further, evolution does not propose that a God must not exist.

WTF are you talking about? Take your meds.

all the dead scientists know.....it is clear now...you are jelous.....yet another insult when i peg your hypocrisy.....i think i have a hat trick now

 

[manu1959]

I don't deny the existence of God, but I struggle with the concept of having an almighty being and how he came into existence. My problem with religion is that it can only take you so far until the questioning ends:

Who put us here?
God put us here.

Who put God there?
God exists outside of space and time and therefore has always existed.

I'm not saying that there is science to back up God's existence (which is why i detest ID), but as an individual I just feel like there has to be more. And I do understand the meaning of faith and its power, but at the same time, it leaves me feeling a bit empty because it doesn't work on a "logical" (shall we say) level.

Who put us here?
The Big Bang put us here.

Who put the Big Bang there?
The Big Bang exists outside of space and time and therefore has always existed.

either is a plausible as the other

 

[manu1959]

I do not claim to be an evolution expert, so I can't "assure you", but where are all the transitional form fossils to support this observable theory?

scientific wmd's they are there i tell you

 

[Abbey Normal]

scientific wmd's they are there i tell you

Maybe if we get all our kids out in the backyard to dig holes to China...

 

[GotZoom]

Isn't that interesting. He was here at the beginning of our last series of responses but now has mysteriously disappeared.

 

[manu1959]

Maybe if we get all our kids out in the backyard to dig holes to China...

hmmmmmmmmmmm.....looks like nap time for our playmates

 

[manu1959]

Isn't that interesting. He was here at the beginning of our last series of responses but now has mysteriously disappeared.

he sensed the force was stong with us :bat:

 

[MissileMan]

if they belive it is evidence it is evidence who are you to tell them it is not?

if you can belive that "nothing, bang, soup, man" can occur and your evidence is the writtings of scientists, written millions of years after the fact....and force those writtings to be taught in all schools without exception.....then you should at least be tollerant and allow those that belive...."nothing, six days, rest, man".... equal time ..... their theroy is as plausible as yours

a man once said....."science was created by man to help man undertstand what God had done and how it was done."

oh yea, symetrical arguments are hard to do after a bottle of vino

There is a major distinction between theory and evidence. Carbon dating and fossils are examples of evidence. ID is a theory with very little if any evidence that supports it.

 

[deaddude]

what about the scientist that say the big bang is crap? and that the scientist of the 50s and 60s were wrong?

The scientists that you refer to have examined the evidence, and beleive that it does not add up. Conflicting theorys are pretty common, usually one ends up having more evidence to support it than the other, however when dealing with things as universal and ancient as the creation of the universe, find evidence can be somwhat difficult.

which experiment duplicated the creation of life from primodial ooooz? where did the find a sample of the oooz to duplicate the conditions?

They proved that more complex organic compounds could form from simpler organic compounds under conditions similar to what could theoreticly be found on primordial earth.

 

[no1tovote4]

They proved that living cells could form from nonliving organic compounds under conditions similar to what could theoreticly be found on primordial earth.

Link us up. So far as I understand it, none of those experiments has produced any positive results to the creation of even a single cell.

 

[deaddude]

Link us up. So far as I understand it, none of those experiments has produced any positive results to the creation of even a single cell.

True, my fault. I will edit that post to be more correct.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So, in your assuring, intellectual wisdom spidey, answer this question for me.

What must happen for X to be 100% proven? Must you see it? Touch it? Feel it?

What are the requirements for something to be factual?

"proven" and "fact" are more along the lines of something a lawyer would worry about.


Science is more concerned with whether or not a theory is useful. A theory is useful if it predicts past, present, and future observation.

ID is useless to science, as it predicts nothing.

 

[GotZoom]

"proven" and "fact" are more along the lines of something a lawyer would worry about.


Science is more concerned with whether or not a theory is useful. A theory is useful if it predicts past, present, and future observation.

I'm asking for you. What is your opinion.

You do have one don't you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

your ability to go to class and take tests is laudable and has nothing to do with my trust....my trust is earned through respect .... post 46 proves you are a liar .... a self proclaimed well eduated liar with a need to prove they know what they know but a liar none the less ....

A PhD program has very little to do with taking tests. Personally, I could care less if you trust me, nor could I care if you choose to ignore facts. THe recent trend towards taller people is due mostly to health effects, if you choose to ignore this fact its no sweat off my back.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I do not claim to be an evolution expert, so I can't "assure you", but where are all the transitional form fossils to support this observable theory?

If you were truly interested, you might try doing your own Google Search.

"transitional forms" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky" would have done it.

But at any rate, I've done it for you.

Literally hundreds of transitional forms are listed here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

along with references to peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what about the scientist that say the big bang is crap? and that the scientist of the 50s and 60s were wrong?

What about him? He's only one guy. There are quacks in every field.