Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

yeah, diatoms and other marine organisms, and plants

some dinos are also in the mix, but in a tiny fraction

but Dr. Bill said "ancient life forms," so ... he's technically correct

 

[Thalassamania]

 

[Green_Manelishi]

What experiments has science performed where they created something from nothing?
What experiments has science performed where they've created life from lifelessness?
What experiments has science performed where they turned "life form x" into "life form z"; such as dinosaurs became birds.

What direct observation of any of the above can science claim?

"Science" belief those events did happen sounds more like faith than science.

 

[Thalassamania]

What experiments has science performed where they created something from nothing?
What experiments has science performed where they've created life from lifelessness?
What experiments has science performed where they turned "life form x" into "life form z"; such as dinosaurs became birds.

What direct observation of any of the above can science claim?

"Science" belief those events did happen sounds more like faith than science.

At least we don't "Ignore Contradicting Evidence"

 

[H2Andy]

At least we don't "Ignore Contradicting Evidence"

and there's a lot to be said for that

 

[Thalassamania]

and there's a lot to be said for that

Ignorance is curable, its stupid that's forever.

 

[gangrel441]

Into the woodwork?

Impose my beliefs? It's more accurate that your beliefs are being imposed; all in the name of "science".

The earth was created in 6 days, not 7. Maybe 6K years ago, maybe not. But it did not "just happen".

You're right. I am just ignoring all those threads that have been started by someone rational....er....I mean someone who believes in evolution, with the stated purpose of challenging creationism. Can you link me to some of those please?

You 6k years ago folks aren't even a blip on our radar until you decide that you want to start the discussion, then act all indignant when we don't agree witn you. I am not an athiest, and I don't exactly consider myself an agnostic either. But I do have some experience with many belief systems, and I get a real bad taste in my mouth about one particular belief system who feels the incessant need to trample all others in its path. As I have said several times, you let God be your guide, and let the Great Spirit be mine, we don't have a problem. You start trying to tell me the Great Spirit is just a Santa Claus figure and that I need to believe in your God, now we have a problem. In the past, the particular faith I am talking about has a history of doing this not with words, but with a book in one hand and a sword in the other. Yeah, that's the way to convince people... :shakehead

So, if you are going to argue black is white with people following the trail of evidence that the fossil record has left us, and instead tell us that a book that was written by MEN in 100 AD is the truth we should all accept, then I am going to take you to task and tell you that you better be ready to disprove not only science, but Native American Religions, Shintoism, Taoism, Islam, Ancient Greek, Norse, Celtic, Roman, and African religions, etc., etc....

The truth I have come to understand is that it is insulting god/gods for Man to state that he knows ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about him/her/them. We are talking about a plane of existence which none of us could EVER comprehend except through gross oversimplification. That gross oversimplification has another word to describe it. "Myth." Another word for it might be "Faith" or "Religion."

Do I believe something or someone or someones are out there pulling the trigger on this whole process, starting at the latest with the Big Bang? Sure. Do I believe that a bunch of bronze age people who wrote one collection of stories to explain the mysteries of life got the whole thing pegged down to how many days it took, how long ago it was, and that we're all screwed because one woman had an insatiable appetite for an apple? Come on. Talk about Santa Claus... :shakehead

I think an earlier poster came up with quite an apt analogy of the civil war battlefield model vs. the aquarium. Funny, I get much pleasure from watching the African Cichlids swim around in my tank every day. I haven't bought a new fish in a few years because they repopulate the tank by themselves. And that is quite enjoyable to experience, too. It isn't what I created, it is only what I set in motion. That is the myth (see definition above) I find most suitable to me, and the fossil record certainly seems to support it.

 

[Warthaug]

What experiments has science performed where they created something from nothing?

We'll, off the top of my head:

1) Abiotic synthesis of organic molecules from non-organic progenitors.

2) Abiotic polymerization of he molecules from #1

3) Generation of self-replicating molecules which could also arise via the abiotic processes in steps 1&2

4) Generation of self-replicating molecular systems, with the replicating product being strictly via naturally occurring abiotic polymerization (step 2).

5) Mathematical/computational modeling of events like hypercycles, probionts, etc, to investigate potential ways in which these proto-life forms could have formed & functioned.

With the exception of #2&5, all of those experiments were conducted pre-1988.

What experiments has science performed where they've created life from lifelessness?

And this has what to do with evolution? We've pointed this out to you several times already in this thread that evolution deal strictly and exclusively with how LIFE changes. How life came about is a completely separate area of science called abiogensis. Whether it was created through abiotic chemistry, in 6 days by god, delivered here by aliens, or was the product of the FSM's noodly appendage doesn't matter - evolution deals with, and only with, what happens once that life exists.

As for creating life from nothing, several groups are working towards synthetic organisms. They're not here yet, but they are on their way. It has the potential to be really big business.

What experiments has science performed where they turned "life form x" into "life form z"; such as dinosaurs became birds.

Thousands. Lab-induced evolution, upto the level of speciation, is old news. The first deliberate attempt was in the late 50's, and was successful (yeast in high acid environment). In fact, the first scientifically observed speciation even was arguably laboratory-generated, as the new species arose in a botanist's breeding center. Oh, and that was in 1905. You're 102 years out of date and counting...

What direct observation of any of the above can science claim?

Considering we see evolution every day of the week, we can say with absolute certainty that it occurs. I've seen it happen in patients I work with, and I have several friends at work who's jobs are to either drive, or monitor, evolution of microbes. We even use evolution commercially - to generate vaccines, develop medical treatments, and to derive organisms with traits we want.

In contrast, what does creationism "theory" provide? Answer is simple - nothing. Creationist/ID theories have not in the >150 years they've existed as pseudo-scientific theories lead to a single scientific discovery, medical treatment, or for that matter, a testable hypothesis. And if anything speaks towards the reality of a scientific theory is the ability to apply that theory to the real world, and derive useful and profitable products from it.

Bryan

 

[Green_Manelishi]

We'll, off the top of my head:

1) Abiotic synthesis of organic molecules from non-organic progenitors.

2) Abiotic polymerization of he molecules from #1

3) Generation of self-replicating molecules which could also arise via the abiotic processes in steps 1&2

4) Generation of self-replicating molecular systems, with the replicating product being strictly via naturally occurring abiotic polymerization (step 2).

5) Mathematical/computational modeling of events like hypercycles, probionts, etc, to investigate potential ways in which these proto-life forms could have formed & functioned.

With the exception of #2&5, all of those experiments were conducted pre-1988.

And this has what to do with evolution? We've pointed this out to you several times already in this thread that evolution deal strictly and exclusively with how LIFE changes. How life came about is a completely separate area of science called abiogensis. Whether it was created through abiotic chemistry, in 6 days by god, delivered here by aliens, or was the product of the FSM's noodly appendage doesn't matter - evolution deals with, and only with, what happens once that life exists.

As for creating life from nothing, several groups are working towards synthetic organisms. They're not here yet, but they are on their way. It has the potential to be really big business.

Thousands. Lab-induced evolution, upto the level of speciation, is old news. The first deliberate attempt was in the late 50's, and was successful (yeast in high acid environment). In fact, the first scientifically observed speciation even was arguably laboratory-generated, as the new species arose in a botanist's breeding center. Oh, and that was in 1905. You're 102 years out of date and counting...

Considering we see evolution every day of the week, we can say with absolute certainty that it occurs. I've seen it happen in patients I work with, and I have several friends at work who's jobs are to either drive, or monitor, evolution of microbes. We even use evolution commercially - to generate vaccines, develop medical treatments, and to derive organisms with traits we want.

In contrast, what does creationism "theory" provide? Answer is simple - nothing. Creationist/ID theories have not in the >150 years they've existed as pseudo-scientific theories lead to a single scientific discovery, medical treatment, or for that matter, a testable hypothesis. And if anything speaks towards the reality of a scientific theory is the ability to apply that theory to the real world, and derive useful and profitable products from it.

Bryan

Perhaps you should go a little deeper than the top of your head. None of what you mention is something from nothing. It's something from something. Start with NOTHING.

Conveniently you prattle on about how life originated from lifelessness not being relevant. Sure. Of course not. But it does present a significant obstacle. One that so far your "scientists" cannot overcome.

You claim they are "on their way"; do let us know when they are even close to arrival at the hoped for destination.

"Speciation" is not the same as dinosaurs eventually became birds. You believe that it will lead to it, given enough time, but you've not seen it happen. The fossil "record" is hardly proof of it happening.

Keep grasping at straws and calling it science; it's great entertainment.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

At least we don't "Ignore Contradicting Evidence"

There is no need; just continue to "perfect" your theory when you have no evidence to support the current fantasy.