• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quotes critical of evolution

Rodney said:
AZAtheist appears to have a faith-based belief in abiogenesis because he doesn't think it's relevant to that hypothesis whether life is ever created in a laboratory. But if a failure to ever create life in a life doesn't falsify that hypothesis, what would?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see the problem you have with the science.


You don't understand how science works.
 
Rodney said:
So when do you forecast that life will be created in a laboratory?
Click to expand...
When do you forecast that the next major advance in physics will happen? If you can't tell me that, why would you consider it evidence that I can't tell you when we will make life in the lab?
 
wollery said:
You don't understand how science works.
Click to expand...
I'd make a comment about you being "master of the obvious," but it would be insulting. Basically, this guy is one of those "I found it!" people where you ask, "Did you have to use both hands?"
 
Schneibster said:
I'd make a comment about you being "master of the obvious," but it would be insulting. Basically, this guy is one of those "I found it!" people where you ask, "Did you have to use both hands?"
Click to expand...
I'd make a comment about you missing the obvious sarcasm in my post, but that too would be insulting.
 
wollery said:
You don't understand how science works.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of a discussion on Climate Change I was engaged in elsewhere and a guy there demanded to be shown experiments demonstrating it in the lab. I tried explaining to him that Magrathea exists only in science fiction novels and that Earth sized laboratory experiments with with Slartibartfast's signature on the fijords aren't necessary to draw conclusions about Global climate forecasts.

He didn't get it and the a mod deleted my post for "flaming."
 
Foster Zygote said:
How about Grand Unification Theory? That's proved to be a pretty tough nut to crack. There have been times in the past when scientists thought they were getting closer only to have the path they were following turn out to be a dead end. Should they give up?

"Creating life in a lab" might be impossible. But we don't need to create create a universe in a lab to understand how it works. We also don't need to be able to recreate life in a lab as long as we gain an understanding of how it works. It might take millions of years to generate life in a lab. It takes millions of years for species to evolve into significantly different forms of life. Biologists don't need to watch macro evolution occur to understand how it works. If they understand the processes by which abiogenesis could have occurred then they will have a theory.
Click to expand...

All of which does nothing to answer the question of how the abiogenesis hypothesis would ever be falsified.
 
Rodney said:
Is that the slender reed you're clinging to in your belief in abiogenesis? And, if so, how is that distinguishable from a miraculous creation?
Click to expand...

The theory of abiogeneisis is a theory, if one takes it as a belief than that is a personal issue. The theory does have evidence to supoort it, although the evidence is not conclusive.

What evidence is there of inteligent design, what data supports the intelligence of the designer that is not also explained by abiogenesis?
 
Rodney said:
So when do you forecast that life will be created in a laboratory?
Click to expand...

Why should it matter to evolution? So yopu can say "a space alien could do it"?

Evolution is observed in the worl around us and despite the foolish negative arguments used to support the theory of intelligent design, the theory of evolution fits the data better than any other theory.

Why are you hung up on the abiogenetic creation in a laboratory. We haven't done nuclear fusion in a laboratory but the theory wwas valid before we blew up Eniwetok.
 
Rodney said:
All of which does nothing to answer the question of how the abiogenesis hypothesis would ever be falsified.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis could be as easily falsified as Spontaneous Generation was. All we have to do is demonstrate that things like autocatalytic processes can't happen with organic materials or that polymers can't self assemble or replicate. Unfortunately (or fortunately) that hasn't proven to be so. Another way of falsifying abiogenesis would be to demonstrate that none of the proto-biotic processes could have occured in the Earth's environment as it existed before things like bacteria and algae developed. Unfortunately that hasn't occured either.

I guess that leaves Creationists with insisting that stromatolites be formed ex nhilo which is as much of a straw man as insisting that a iguana give birth to a sparrow.
 
A challenge for ID proponents on this thread:

I claim Intelligent Design is purely ontological conjecture. All of the arguments are only convincing in your head, based on your own opinions of how you would like the world to be. Or, at best, appeals to other people's opinions of how they would like the world to be.

Don't agree with that? Prove me wrong! Present empirical evidence to support your claims. Doesn't matter if it is published or not. I want to see some form of argument for ID that can be measured scientifically, not just formed in the head.


(Note: This was also posted in the thread about ID Papers. But, then I figured it actually fit better here.)
 
Darat said:
What is life?
Click to expand...
I favor the conventional definition given in Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life --

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characterstic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
 
Wowbagger said:
All of the arguments are only convincing in your head, based on your own opinions of how you would like the world to be.
Click to expand...

One sees a painting. One infers, due to its complexity and information, it has a painter. It is that way regardless if one wants the painting to have real design or not.

Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

It is up to you to provide evidence that you are correct, not for others to disprove your claims you have yet to establish.

I'd think people doing actual work in this field, are probably more interested in journals and following the standard channels of science, rather than wasting time with silly 'challenges'.
 
T'ai Chi said:
One sees a painting. One infers, due to its complexity and information, it has a painter. It is that way regardless if one wants the painting to have real design or not.
Click to expand...

You "infer" because you know that it is a painter and not a spilled drop.

T'ai Chi said:
It is up to you to provide evidence that you are correct, not for others to disprove your claims you have yet to establish.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know that you think that the biblical version of Creation is the default position. You are wrong.

T'ai Chi said:
I'd think people doing actual work in this field, are probably more interested in journals and following the standard channels of science, rather than wasting time with silly 'challenges'.
Click to expand...

It is quite a challenge to provide evidence, isn't it? Somehow, they have to cheat to claim (falsely) that ID has been peer-reviewed.
 
Rodney said:
I favor the conventional definition given in Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life --

[snip]
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
[snip]
Click to expand...

Now, that's a convenient definition. Avoids the whole virus & prion debate, avoids the possibility of computer-based "life".

If I define "flight" as something that is accomplished with feathers, can I claim that bugs, bats, and planes do not fly?

(not really complaining about your choice of definitions [at least you choose one and state it]; simply pointing out that it is not the only possible one, and quite possibly not the best.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom