Stolen Post: Science versus Creationism

[Dante]

Some people actually say things like:
A) There is no hard evidence for existence of God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

So, how can we declare (for example) the primordial pool to be a scientific theory but Creationism to be not.

Since neither one can be proved yes or no, how can one be discounted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creationism is not a scientific theory, or is it? Evolution is a scientific theory, or isn't it?

Hard evidence for how life begin? Is there any?

 

[Steven_R]

Evolution isn't about how life began, but rather it's about how life changed and adapted to its environment to the multitude of varieties we see today. we don't know how life began, although biochemists and molecular biologists have hypotheses.

Science isn't trying to prove or disprove God. It's just trying to explain how the universe and all the pieces of it function, whether it is biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or any other branch of science. If the evidence before us and the explanation scientists come up with to explain said evidence doesn't fit with someone's holy texts, that isn't science's problem. The universe is what it is regardless of what we want it to be and entire libraries of data says evolution is what explains the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[Dante]

Evolution isn't about how life began, but rather it's about how life changed and adapted to its environment to the multitude of varieties we see today. we don't know how life began, although biochemists and molecular biologists have hypotheses.

Science isn't trying to prove or disprove God. It's just trying to explain how the universe and all the pieces of it function, whether it is biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or any other branch of science. If the evidence before us and the explanation scientists come up with to explain said evidence doesn't fit with someone's holy texts, that isn't science's problem. The universe is what it is regardless of what we want it to be and entire libraries of data says evolution is what explains the diversity of life on Earth.

what about creationism?

 

[Steven_R]

"Goddidit" isn't a scientific proposition, if for no other reason than it isn't a testable hypothesis.

 

[Dante]

 

[PratchettFan]

Some people actually say things like:
A) There is no hard evidence for existence of God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

So, how can we declare (for example) the primordial pool to be a scientific theory but Creationism to be not.

Since neither one can be proved yes or no, how can one be discounted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creationism is not a scientific theory, or is it? Evolution is a scientific theory, or isn't it?

Hard evidence for how life begin? Is there any?

There is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. I have no idea why you toss in the word "hard". Perhaps you mean objective and relevant.

There is evidence to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I believe the last round was actual creation of RNA in the lab by simulating an asteroid strike on the primordial environment. Not proof, by any means, but certainly evidence.

Science requires objective and relevant evidence to move forward to a theory. Creationism requires a creator, for which there is no evidence at all. Therefore, it cannot be a theory.

 

[Dante]

Some people actually say things like:
A) There is no hard evidence for existence of God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

So, how can we declare (for example) the primordial pool to be a scientific theory but Creationism to be not.

Since neither one can be proved yes or no, how can one be discounted?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creationism is not a scientific theory, or is it? Evolution is a scientific theory, or isn't it?

Hard evidence for how life begin? Is there any?

There is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. (1) I have no idea why you toss in the word "hard". Perhaps you mean objective and relevant.

There is evidence to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I believe the last round was actual creation of RNA in the lab by simulating an asteroid strike on the primordial environment. Not proof, by any means, but certainly evidence.

Science requires objective and relevant evidence to move forward to a theory. Creationism requires a creator, for which there is no evidence at all. Therefore, it cannot be a theory.

(1) Hard was not my choice of word -- it is what the original quoted poster in the first post chose. I agree it is a poor choice.

Love the abiogenesis reference. That one drives some over the proverbial edge

 

[Old Rocks]

For evolution, there are countless peices of evidence from the fossil record to the very DNA in our own bodies. For abiogenisis, we perform tests, and gather evidence on how it might have happened, but the exact course it took may never be known. You see, as we have been looking at the conditions of the time, and doing tests, what we found is that there are many, many ways that abiogenisis could have started, and many differant paths it could have taken to get where it is today.

 

[Dante]

For evolution, there are countless peices of evidence from the fossil record to the very DNA in our own bodies. For abiogenisis, we perform tests, and gather evidence on how it might have happened, but the exact course it took may never be known. You see, as we have been looking at the conditions of the time, and doing tests, what we found is that there are many, many ways that abiogenisis could have started, and many differant paths it could have taken to get where it is today.

cool!