Creation vs. Evolution

[shoredivr]

A good scientist would never make such extrapolation. But I guess that we would never confuse you with a good scientist anyway.

And this from someone who said:

Fine. But let's set up the ground rules. [...] Let's keep it civil.

Anyway, I think Warthaug sums it up quite well:

[...]And yet creationists don't hold the opposite to be true - they (you included, based on past posts) expect science to conform to the obviously limited and simplistic description provided in the bible. When it doesn't, instead of accepting those results at face value, you instead go off on rants about how science is attacking religion, etc, etc, etc. Likewise, rather than develop an alternate explanation, creationists use tactics like lawsuits and taking over school boards to try and force their beliefs into the science classroom; even though by your own admission science in accordance with creationism is an impossibility.

 

[Thalassamania]

And I challenge you to support your contention that abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Once you do that, we can go back to whether or not "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet.

I never stated that there was perfect and complete understanding. Frankly, the Wiki article on the origin of life is rather more convincing than any creation mythology I've ever read. But that was not what I asked for, nor did I ask for your critique as to if "evolution" adequately explains the life we have on this planet, all I asked for was a single example of where science and religion had come into conflict and where the resolution of the disagreement had been in favor of the religious view.

Do you have one or not?

 

[Theunis]

I think this thread has proven one point VERY clearly and that is the fact that the believers in God and the most non-believers have different views on the questions about evolution and creation.

Faith in God is what it says, it's faith and I am standing by and for it!! All these arguments are very interesting but temporary. One day we ALL will know the truth and the truth will be revealed to us.

 

[Thalassamania]

Okay my favorite fable is the Miller Experiment which is still in textbooks today. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Science becomes nothing more than a materialistic philosophy when it fails to police an endless trail of out-dated science which has been proven false by the scientific community. The implication is they're either lazy to fix it, or they just don't care because they're creating a planet of little atheists out there in our schools.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system. Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

The book is still open on Millers work, but it seems unlikely to be the answer.

So what's your problem? Why do you delude yourself into the idea that scientists make the same mistake about inerrancy that religionists do. I'm happy to say the, with respect to abiogenesis, we do not have a precise and provable answer (yet), but that hardly requires the invocation of, "Abracadabra, it's alive, it's alive!" that you seem to favor.

Exactly my point. Instead of going back to enlighten people on the past mistakes of science, its expedient to move on to the next, truth-of-the-moment theory.

Thorough enlightenment is but a page turn or a click away. It is not my job to hold everyone hand through that rather simple process. I do worry that we permit morons who do not keep up to teach school and select textbooks, but that is, frankly, your fault and not mine.

A good scientist would never make such extrapolation. But I guess that we would never confuse you with a good scientist anyway.

Coming from you I take that as a major compliment, since by your own admission you know little science and by your own actions you brand yourself a bronze age Luddite.

Now ... how about that one example. Haven't got one? I'm so surprised.

 

[Sordello]

The clerical world will never be able to understand or comprehend theological or earth sciences because it is a choice not to. Their preachers are not taught to do this - they appear to be taught to avoid these subjects. The preacher at my wifes church has a doctorate in theology but does not even know the meaning of words like Apocalypse or even know the what Armageddon is - or to be more exact - where it is.

They believe that the truth is simply right there written in the bible word for word - I think that most of us have forgotten that this is not possible. It is not possible because words cannot express it. Eyes cannot see it. fingers cannot feel it. I'm not going to knock Jesus but, I have read the original quotes attributed to him as they were written in the first century. They for the most part not what the modern Bible reader expects.

All we see is an illusion or an allusion to some truth which we hope exists. This is what we call faith.

 

[Thalassamania]

One day we ALL will know the truth and the truth will be revealed to us.

In reality you will never know the truth, I guess its a boon that you will not have to actually face how much of your life and thought processes you wasted.

 

[coachpill]

Absolutely incorrect. Gene duplication, regardless of species, produces two copies of a gene, both of which are fully functional. Divergent evolution will then cause the function of one (or both) copies to change. In some cases two genes may take over the job of what used to be one; but in the vast majority of cases you get divergence - one gene taking on a new and different function.Bryan

A Gene Divided Reveals The Details Of Natural Selection

Sorry to invade again as I said I was leaving, but I came across the above article. As I stated before, I don't have the journals in front of me, but the original work was in Nature.

But even this article clearly states that the gene duplication, if there even was one, would have happened 100 million years ago. This is obviously not directly observable.

Then, still millions of unobservable years ago, supposed "useful mutations" occurred that somehow forced the two identical genes to mutate such that now they were complementary to one another and working "in cahoots" with one another. Again, these mutations supposedly occurred too many millions of years ago to be observed, so they are assumed to have happened.

Assumptive language is then used such that the supposedly "new" species of yeast works "better," and "gains efficiency," and the separate genes now are "better at the job" than the supposed "ancestral" species. Quite assumptive language as the supposed "ancestral" species is still doing just dandy.

Anyway, my specific example of gene duplication in yeast I gave in a previous post was dead on. And still we have no direct observation of it ever occurring. I also find it quite funny that the authors called this "evolution in action," when clearly this supposedly happened 100 million years ago.

Thanks! Gotta go again. I haven't read up on any of the other posts since I "retired" earlier. I'll get some time later to that I hope. By guys!

 

[Soggy]

A Gene Divided Reveals The Details Of Natural Selection

Sorry to invade again as I said I was leaving, but I came across the above article. As I stated before, I don't have the journals in front of me, but the original work was in Nature.

But even this article clearly states that the gene duplication, if there even was one, would have happened 100 million years ago. This is obviously not directly observable.

Then, still millions of unobservable years ago, supposed "useful mutations" occurred that somehow forced the two identical genes to mutate such that now they were complementary to one another and working "in cahoots" with one another. Again, these mutations supposedly occurred too many millions of years ago to be observed, so they are assumed to have happened.

Assumptive language is then used such that the supposedly "new" species of yeast works "better," and "gains efficiency," and the separate genes now are "better at the job" than the supposed "ancestral" species. Quite assumptive language as the supposed "ancestral" species is still doing just dandy.

Anyway, my specific example of gene duplication in yeast I gave in a previous post was dead on. And still we have no direct observation of it ever occurring. I also find it quite funny that the authors called this "evolution in action," when clearly this supposedly happened 100 million years ago.

Thanks! Gotta go again. I haven't read up on any of the other posts since I "retired" earlier. I'll get some time later to that I hope. By guys!

Hey, coachpill - what did you do your PhD work in? We all know what Warthaug did.

 

[sheck33]

Okay my favorite fable is the Miller Experiment which is still in textbooks today. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Science becomes nothing more than a materialistic philosophy when it fails to police an endless trail of out-dated science which has been proven false by the scientific community. The implication is they're either lazy to fix it, or they just don't care because they're creating a planet of little atheists out there in our schools.

Exactly my point. Instead of going back to enlighten people on the past mistakes of science, its expedient to move on to the next, truth-of-the-moment theory.

A good scientist would never make such extrapolation. But I guess that we would never confuse you with a good scientist anyway.

The Miller-Urey experiment is perfectly valid. Many experiments of this kind followed.
Please provide some concrete information that states the Miller experiement is 'false' or a 'fable'. That experiment is what it is. It provided some very interesting insight into how primitive life might have formed. Needles to say you of course have no scientifically verifyable alternative.

I know you are focussing on mistakes that are inevitably made in science because that is all you really have to work with. You use mistakes made in science to 'prove' your opinions. Ludicrous.

His little pinky is more of a scientist than you'll ever be.

 

[sheck33]

One day we ALL will know the truth and the truth will be revealed to us.

Who knows, but in the meantime keep this creationist nonsense out of the science classroom, thanks.