Human skull found by Mars rover!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I do think that after 100 plus years of looking for an alternative a Creator still remains as the most probable hypothesis.

Your post was pretty puzzling overall, but this is a real stumper. Essentially, your argument is that because not every scientific hypothesis can be proven, therefore a doctrine for which there is by definition NO PROOF is the most probably hypothesis.

And well, that's a bit of a problem. Because you see, a hypothesis--in order to be a hypothesis--must be two things. 1. It must be testable. 2. It must be falsifiable.

The notion that we were created by "a Creator" is therefore not a hypothesis--that is, unless you can give me clear criteria that tell me how you would know if your notion of creationism were wrong. If those criteria don't exist, that means that you've decided that you're not wrong, no matter what. That's not a "hypothesis." That's dogma.

[Kaon]

I'm still trying to figure out why the two can't be combined. I'll say I believe in Creationism, but I think it's stupid to deny that evolution doesn't exist. There is proof of it's existence, at least on a small scale. Species adapt to their surroundings, and the ones that best fit are the most likely to survive. Obviously we don't have imperical data going back to the beginning of time to prove that evolution didn't happen, but as was already mentioned we don't have proof that goes back to the beginning of time that proves that God created us all either.

So I'll ask this to all of you, specifically Calgaryborn since he always seems so anti-science every time it conflicts with his views on religion. Why could God not have created life on the planet using evolution as the means to create? I mean he is all powerful, so if he wanted to develop life over many generations, he could very well do that. I will admit I find it hard to believe that the randomness that created a single cell that eventually evolved into what we see all around us, did so without any guidance or control in place.

And please don't use the biblical reference to God creating the world in 7 days to discount why he couldn't have used evolution to create existing life. Even in the Bible it states that a day unto god is like a thousand years unto man. And in non-cannonized books you can find evidence that suggests this number might be significantly higher. Either way, God could have sped up the evolutionary process if he saw fit I suppose.

I just don't see why so many people believe we have to just magically poof into existance for Intelligent Design to exist. The odds of that first cell randomly being created in the perfect environment in the universe is how much?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Your post was pretty puzzling overall, but this is a real stumper. Essentially, your argument is that because not every scientific hypothesis can be proven, therefore a doctrine for which there is by definition NO PROOF is the most probably hypothesis.

No my arguement is that every theory that has been put forward proposing how life as we know it began as non-life without outside intervention has been proven faulty. Outside intervention(a Creator) has been actually boistered in this same time period by our greater understanding of the great complexity of even the most simple life form.

And well, that's a bit of a problem. Because you see, a hypothesis--in order to be a hypothesis--must be two things. 1. It must be testable. 2. It must be falsifiable.

So I guess by your own standard Evolution beyond the micro level(minor changes within a species} is a faith rather than a science.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I thought the article did a very good job at looking at what the basic requirements would be to constitute life. He quoted more than one view point on the subject and tried to simplify it as much as possible.

I think his basic requirements were selected to create an event that would be basically impossible and then called it such. It's a straw man.

I think you are arguing that until every possible senerio for the evolving of life from non-life is examined we can't rule such a thing as impossible. Of course we will never exaust ourself of hypothetical theories so you have a point.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying (and that's good science). You could really never prove it is impossible. However to prove it is possible you only have to come up with one solution.

You could demonstrate it is highly improbable, however this article doesn't accomplish that IMO.

What I can say is that science hasn't come up with a plausible theory and the possibility of finding that theory has become increasing remote with our increased understanding of the complexity of even the most simple life forms. Moreover, we have found no observable evidence that these necessary links have ever existed.

And we may never find any links.. those forms of life are long gone and there's probably no evidence left behind (microscopic fossils?). But again just because there isn't a current workable theory doesn't mean one can invoke creation.

And by what standards is finding that theory becoming increasingly remote?

That's one problem with creationism, is it worships the gaps. It is consumed with finding the gaps in knowledge and then says "there is this gap, so God must have happened here". Then when the gap is filled, now there's TWO gaps, one on either side. It's not rational to keep moving the goal posts.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So I guess by your own standard Evolution beyond the micro level(minor changes within a species} is a faith rather than a science.

I know I've posted evidence that demonstrates speciation and such in the past. And since you are proposing that there is some mechanism that limits "minor" changes from becoming "major" changes, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that mechanism.

This is an example of one of those things that gets restated by creationism even though it has long since been refuted.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kaon

So I'll ask this to all of you, specifically Calgaryborn since he always seems so anti-science every time it conflicts with his views on religion. Why could God not have created life on the planet using evolution as the means to create? I mean he is all powerful, so if he wanted to develop life over many generations, he could very well do that.

He could, but to what end? Does God push down on everything? Should we replace gravity with the theory of intelligent falling?

I will admit I find it hard to believe that the randomness that created a single cell that eventually evolved into what we see all around us, did so without any guidance or control in place.

I would recommend more research on the topic then since no one suggests that randomness created a single cell.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ahhhh, way to wrap that one up with some circular logic.

If life can't come from non-life, then whatever created life must be life. But that life doesn't have to come from anywhere because I have arbitrarily said so. Sounds reasonable to me.

This is what I don't like about creationist "SCIENCE" is that it applies a bad definition to something to disprove something else, and then claims, "See, it doesn't work so it must be God".

I have no problem debating these things, and you are fully within your realm to beleive them, and you can try to debate them all you like. All I ask is that you apply the same standard of proof to your own reasoning that any half way respecatble scientist would.

I was just trying to give an explanation.

I'm certainly not one to say that whenever something can't be figured out...to say..'it must be God.'

I am far from a creationist...but I don't think God came from something. Just my belief..thats all.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Outside intervention(a Creator) has been actually boistered in this same time period by our greater understanding of the great complexity of even the most simple life form.

I don't know about bolstered, but who exactly is responsible for our "greater understanding of the complexity..."?

Are they too be trusted? After all, everything they've put forward in regards to evolution has been proven wrong.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No my arguement is that every theory that has been put forward proposing how life as we know it began as non-life without outside intervention has been proven faulty. Outside intervention(a Creator) has been actually boistered in this same time period by our greater understanding of the great complexity of even the most simple life form.

No--this is exactly the fallacy I was trying to point out. One theory being wrong isn't proof that another one is true. If it were, then I could propose that the earth was created by fire-breathing monkeys. You have no proof that it was created by God--therefore, by your logic, my "fire-breathing monkey" theory is "bolstered." That's beyond absurd.

Also, I'm curious as to whether you can find for me some evidence that contra-indicates current scientific thought about the origins of life. Just for fun, why don't we stipulate that you need to reference a reputable journalistic or scholarly source while doing so. I'm suspecting that you may find that a tall order.

So I guess by your own standard Evolution beyond the micro level(minor changes within a species} is a faith rather than a science.

This statement just shows that you don't know too much about evolutionary theory. It's constantly evolving in order to better explain the available data--moreover, it IS falsifiable and testable. It just hasn't been proven wrong yet. If and when it is, other theories which better explain the data will take its place. That's how science works.

Others in this thread have proposed that Evolution and the idea of God are not necessarily contradictory notions. This is true. Religion and science speak to entirely different kinds of truth. It's when people start to pretend that religion IS science that we run into a problem. Many scientists are very religious people. Evolution is a theory that answers questions about how life occurred on earth. Religion is a framework for understanding why the universe exists at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

He could, but to what end? Does God push down on everything? Should we replace gravity with the theory of intelligent falling?

I think that is exactly what Kaon is getting at. Why can't the theory of gravity...in other words science...co-exist with a belief in God?

I don't see the two as conflicting viewpoints...but I do think the way some people present the religious side...makes you wonder if they even believe in science.

Some people take the Bible too literally...sure it says God created everything in 6 days...but how did he create it? And if you believe that God did create everything...surely you must believe that he also used science as a method of making everything work.

Sometimes the hardline religious viewpoint really drives me up the wall....there is such a wealth of information that science has given us...yet certain religious people 'still' deny it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I know I've posted evidence that demonstrates speciation and such in the past. And since you are proposing that there is some mechanism that limits "minor" changes from becoming "major" changes, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that mechanism.

Really? So when it comes to evolution the onus is on me to disprove something you can't prove. But, when it comes to the notion of a Creator I must devise a test that can irrefutably prove or disprove His intervention.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think that is exactly what Kaon is getting at. Why can't the theory of gravity...in other words science...co-exist with a belief in God?

I don't see the two as conflicting viewpoints...but I do think the way some people present the religious side...makes you wonder if they even believe in science.

I don't necessarily either. I used to argue from Calgaryborn's side of this debate for most of my life.

However it seems disingenuous to me... Religion says everything was created in six literal days there's no way to explain it otherwise. Science comes up and demonstrates that to be incorrect and provides a mechanism (just like gravity is a mechanism), so the goalposts are moved to abiogenesis. Lets say we someday DO find out exactly how it all started, then the goalposts will be moved to the big bang (and already have been actually). The universe is too finely tuned. Then science demonstrates the multiple universe theory correct and our universe is actually naturally selected out of multiple universes, the goalposts are moved again to the multiverse... and so on and so on. An honest scientific theory doesn't do that.

Sometimes the hardline religious viewpoint really drives me up the wall....there is such a wealth of information that science has given us...yet certain religious people 'still' deny it.

Exactly, evolution has had a positive impact on the lives of the entire planet with its science.. while creationism, what benefit has it brought?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really? So when it comes to evolution the onus is on me to disprove something you can't prove. But, when it comes to the notion of a Creator I must devise a test that can irrefutably prove or disprove His intervention.

I didn't say you had to disprove something you can't prove. I said the onus is on you to provide a mechanism to prove your theory (that small changes are somehow limited at the species level). That is your contention is it not?

Just as the onus is on evolutionists to provide evidence for their theory (which there is mountains of, do a search of any peer reviewed journal site for evolution).

The onus isn't on you to prove a Creator, only to devise tests for the theory of creation.

EDIT: Anyway, I have to run out to a meeting, so I'll be offline for the nite.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't necessarily either. I used to argue from Calgaryborn's side of this debate for most of my life.

Makes sense.

However it seems disingenuous to me... Religion says everything was created in six literal days there's no way to explain it otherwise.

You're stereotyping just a bit here...religion will say that, yes...but there are many, many religious people who think the literal explanation is wrong.

"One day to God is like a thousand years to man." I think that says a lot.

Science comes up and demonstrates that to be incorrect and provides a mechanism (just like gravity is a mechanism), so the goalposts are moved to abiogenesis. Lets say we someday DO find out exactly how it all started, then the goalposts will be moved to the big bang (and already have been actually). The universe is too finely tuned. Then science demonstrates the multiple universe theory correct and our universe is actually naturally selected out of multiple universes, the goalposts are moved again to the multiverse... and so on and so on. An honest scientific theory doesn't do that.

Agreed 100%. Personally I think too many religious folks are stuck referring to evolution as 'we come from apes'...in other words Darwinism. And instead of opening their eyes...they chose to stay ignorant on the subject...and like you said...trace everything back to the 'we can't explain it so God is the answer.'

Exactly, evolution has had a positive impact on the lives of the entire planet with its science.. while creationism, what benefit has it brought?

Outside of debates like these...? Nothing really...but the constant bickering of religious folks and their ignorant viewpoints.

[Jake]

Just wondering... do creationists have a problem with the way life began or with it evolved after that?

Either way science can present 10x as much evidence as any religion can. It just seems stupid to ignore it and say "I don't believe life can begin from nothing".

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Agreed 100%. Personally I think too many religious folks are stuck referring to evolution as 'we come from apes'...in other words Darwinism. And instead of opening their eyes...they chose to stay ignorant on the subject...and like you said...trace everything back to the 'we can't explain it so God is the answer.'

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between evolutionary theory and Darwinian evolutionary theory, the way you see it? I'm just wondering; I'm no expert, but as far as I know the doctrine of natural selection and speciation, which are the two basic tenets of Darwinian thought, are still the basic paradigms through which evolution occurred.

Also, one point of clarification: we didn't "come from" apes. We ARE Apes. Just a pet peeve.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between evolutionary theory and Darwinian evolutionary theory, the way you see it? I'm just wondering; I'm no expert, but as far as I know the doctrine of natural selection and speciation, which are the two basic tenets of Darwinian thought, are still the basic paradigms through which evolution occurred.

Also, one point of clarification: we didn't "come from" apes. We ARE Apes. Just a pet peeve.

Darwin didn't know about genetics. The subject really only started in in the early 1900's. Most of evolutionary theory is based on allele frequency changes, mutation, genetic drift and at least 5 other major topics I forget...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

Darwin didn't know about genetics. The subject really only started in in the early 1900's. Most of evolutionary theory is based on allele frequency changes, mutation, genetic drift and at least 5 other major topics I forget...

Fair enough. But the general precepts of natural selection and speciation are the same, no? Don't we just have more sophisticated ways of understanding the mechanisms by which those work?

[WCE]

Iowa_Flames_Fan;

You are a scholar and a gentleman, and it is a pleasure to read you.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Can you tell me his religious affiliation...

He is a professor at an evangelical liberal arts university.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This of course is a departure from the question being discussed. You responded to a challenge to the validity of the scientific theory on the origin of life with an attack on christian views on the origin of life.

That depends. I suppose I should apologize for opening a can of worms with my "design" post, but you claimed that a creationists problem rests with the invalidity of his supposition that something can come from nothing. It has already been pointed out numerous times in this forum, and even in this thread that this declaration misunderstands the mechanisms of evolution. I would rather concede that my departure was nothing of the sort. To understand the dogma of creationism one must understand the history which preceeds it. I only sought to (very briefly) demonstrate that there are philosophical and historical underpinings of the hyper-rationalistic doctrine of inerrency, and that it is this doctrine which served to establish and reinforces the concept of "scientific creationism".
Quite frankly, there is no challenge to the validity of the scientific theory of the origins of life from ancient Christian literature, simply by virtue of the fact that such literature is incapable of mounting a rebuttal of any science because it is all pre-scientific. The doctrine of inerrency would choose to ignore this very sustainable fact, and it does so for no better reason than to attempt to reconcile an extreme form of rationalism with a very wooden concept of divine inspiration and revelation. In the end, the debate that creationists would choose to engage should not really about science. It is wholly a philosophical and theological dilemma which has long since been soundly debunked.