Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[zooterkin]

I've never read or seen anything that proves its a fact. And I have read a portion of Darwin's Origin of Species. But even if it is a fact, that doesn't disprove God.

As others have said, no-one is claiming that the Origin of Species disproves God. If true, though, it does, however, imply that the account of creation in the Bible is not literally true. If your particular brand of Christianity holds that the account of creation, and the flood, etc. in the Bible is the literal truth, and you think if that's not the case then God does not exist, I can see why you might feel threatened by evolution. The Christians I grew up with were rather more rational than that; both my parents were Christian, and teachers, and had no problem teaching evolution.

 

[joobz]

Here's a question off the top of my head:

How much should we respect or coddle anyone who equates abiogenesis with evolution this deep into the thread? Anyone who does at this point, in the face of your wonderfully patient explanations, is someone who is probably never, ever going to accept reality on its own terms. They are so entrenched in their belief that they aren't actually reading or attempting to understand anything you are trying to share with them.

Perhaps, but I'm one of those Scientists who don't mind the conflation. It is an extremely important question of scientific merit.

If we see evolution occur and can extrapolate it back through the millenia...then what stops it at the proverbial LUCA? Perhaps it will be found that (much like neutonian mechanics at the particle level) evolution breaks down at the abiogenesis condition, but we haven't had experiments to suggest so yet.

To put another way, I think the seperation of abiogenesis from the generation of life complexity via evolution is like the difference in micro vs. macro evolution. IN the micro vs. macro debate, people claim that microevolution is the differentiation within a species to adapt but cannot result in macro evolution which has been said to be (denovo gene formation, speciation, ...). However, eviedence has shown that there is no clear boundary, and every definition that has been offered* for macro vs. microevolution has been proven to occur. As such, the need to define a difference between the two is rather arbitrary and is merely meant to place a wedge into something where no crack exists.

By seperating abiogenesis from evolution is to pass the buck. We should be willing to show, yes there is a gap in evolutionary theory and that gap is abiogenesis.

*definitions routed in science and not poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

But even if it is a fact, that doesn't disprove God.

Thank you, DOC, for understanding this. You warm my heart.

 

[X]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Martians would have to present actual evidence, not just claim they did it. On top of which, initiating life would be abiogenesis, not ToE.

Now, the potential fossil find is not fallacious at all. Granted the rabbit comment is a bit off the cuff, but the point is correct: there are certain fossil finds that would cause serious difficulties for current CD theories, and would require extensive modification. If a modern human were found in the same fossil layer with dinosaurs, for example, that would be a serious problem. But it need not be so dramatic, there are others that could be found as well. There is nothing fallacious about that. Just because such finds haven't been made doesn't mean they could not be made.

And before you say that a modification is not falsification, that is how science treats all well established theories. You don't throw out a theory that has made correct predictions in the past because of a single problem, you find out why it doesn't work in certain situations and what new theories have to be incorporated into the overall framework. Newton's laws still work in most situations, and his equations are still used most of the time, with modest corrections for the effects of relativity at higher speeds and higher gravity.

But I am certain you will find some reason to dismiss this. I think it would be easier for you to list a few finds that _you_ think would be evidence to falsify ToE. Barring that, how about a few finds that would falsify some other well established theory such as relativity, QD or germ theory. Some indication of what you are looking for would I think be more helpful than playing verbal "whack a mole".

Thank you for that.
I just want to make it clear that the rabbits in the Precambrian comment may be off-the-cuff, but it is not off my cuff.
So far as I can determine, the statement originated with one J. B. S. Haldane.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's a question off the top of my head:

How much should we respect or coddle anyone who equates abiogenesis with evolution this deep into the thread? Anyone who does at this point, in the face of your wonderfully patient explanations, is someone who is probably never, ever going to accept reality on its own terms. They are so entrenched in their belief that they aren't actually reading or attempting to understand anything you are trying to share with them.

Perhaps, but I'm one of those Scientists who don't mind the conflation. It is an extremely important question of scientific merit...By seperating abiogenesis from evolution is to pass the buck. We should be willing to show, yes there is a gap in evolutionary theory and that gap is abiogenesis.

What joobz said. In addition, it appears to me that creationists are willing to conflate evolution and abiogenesis because they're not actually arguing about evolution. They're arguing about methodological naturalism, even if they don't know it.

Think about it. Not only do creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis, they also conflate it with cosmology. I've long since lost track of the number of times the goalposts have been shifted in that direction. To pull just one example, creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution (to be fair, it is some years since I actually heard a creationist claim this). We reply, correctly, that the earth is not a closed system, and constantly receives energy from the sun. Aha! cry the creationists. But the universe itself is a closed system, so therefore entropy cannot decrease, and therefore evolution is impossible. A ridiculous argument from a scientific point of view, but my purpose is to demonstrate that creationists do not separate different sciences.

The other thing they say is that evolution requires abiogenesis in order to get started, and so evolution is not complete unless and until abiogenesis is thoroughly explained. And in a way this is true. The mistake they make is in believing that the different branches of science depend on one another. I've actually had someone claim that until we know everything about everything, science is useless.

 

[skeptical]

Thank you for that.
I just want to make it clear that the rabbits in the Precambrian comment may be off-the-cuff, but it is not off my cuff.
So far as I can determine, the statement originated with one J. B. S. Haldane.

I believe that is correct. At least, I have seen it attributed to him. Sorry, I didn't intend to make it appear that it was your original comment.

I think Haldane intended it sort of half jestingly, but of course there is no null hypothesis reason not to find such a fossil. In fact, there is no null hypothesis reason to find _any_ ordering of fossils whatsoever. The fact that there is an ordering, and a particular one at that, is good evidence for CD.

 

[Radrook]

Your use of the word "true" science helps support my case. Radrook, I respect many of your opinions, but evolution is, indeed, science. It generates testable hypotheses and has resulted in multiple instances of validation.

It's not the generation of data which leads to validations which is in question. It's the interpretations given to those observations wehich are then classed as validations that some scientists question.

I once asked you for an alternative hypothesis to evolution which would explain 17 separate observations.

I am not one to be postulating scientific hypothesis. However, I am one who can decide which hypothesis I consider believable or not or which scientifc view seems the more acceptable to me.

It is true that exact mechanisms by which certain aspects occur has not been worked out. It is also true that we may come across a part of life that does not fit evolutionary theory. If that occurs, than evolution will be disproved and a new theory will replace it.

Yep! And I can assure you, that whatever new theory replaces it-will be just as atheistically appealing as this one.

However, due to the success of evolution to explain so much of the observed data, it is unlikely that the new theory wouldn't have some sort of evolutionary component to it. Consider it a Newtonian/quantum mechanical split.

Not all scientists agree with that success-evaluation.
Despite all those observations which are claimed to be 100% evidence of evolution, there are scientists who are still unconvinced and who provide reasons which I find justify doubt in relation to those conclusions said to support evolution. Such scientists have found that conclusions reached are tantamount to stretching the patient to fit the bed. I have found their arguments convincing wile you have found their arguments unsatisfactory. So it all boils down to which scientists we listen to-the present majority or a minority who also have a scientific viewpoint.

I agree. That is why I have no respect for ID. it isn't science. It isn't even in the running as a competitor theory.

And you are entitled to feel that lack of respect just as I am entitled to feel lack of respect for the abiogenesis idea due to what I choose to perceive as lack of conclusive scientific evidence and lack of inductive observation basis. I also find the double standards that atheistic scientists practice unethical and blatantly hypocritical. Leading me to suspect that they can't be trusted in other areas of research as well.

that's an odd statement. The collision of two chemical species is a random chance, and indeed can be considered a happy accident. But such an analogy is meaningless as we know it occurs.

Occurrence isn't being doubted.

Also, the chance of me existing is a "happy accident" There are ~300,000 oocytes per woman. So there is a 1 in 300,000 chance that the right (Joobz egg to have been there)
There are about 10-100million sperm produced per day) So, assuming there are a good 50 years of sperm producing life in an average person, that results in about 0.2-2 trillion sperm. Which means that there was at best (not factoring in success of fertilization, success of development...) a 1 in 60,000 trillion chance that I would be here. But here I am. Do you doubt that I'm here, since I'm merely a happy accidenct?

The example seems to be false analogy because we aren't speaking of things already alive such as sperm. We are speaking of inanimate matter organizing itself so that it can coding itself with the PURPOSE of replication.

You are arguing from incredulity, which only works if we have never observed the steps which would have led to the conditions we see. We know that these events are random and improbable, but we know they occur. As such, incredulity doesn't work.

Of course I am incredulous! But it isn't that I don't believe that sometimes basic chemistry interactions don't occur by chance Of course chemistry interactions happen. But there is absolutely no reason for me to conclude that because basic chemistry happens, that it HAS TO happen in the way described by abiogenesis. In fact, there are strong scientific arguments against such a thing happening that I find very convincing. Of course, you don't. But I do.

We know that abiogenesis had to occur.

And we know that creation via an ID had to occur.

The question is how. Creationist claim it is god that did it (poofed life into existence).

No one is claiming a "poof!" Just as no one in the abiogenesis group is claiming a "pop!"

Actually, abiogenesis falls more under the "Poof!" description than a creator planning his creation and then executing his plan does. So what you are describing is more your own concept than the ID one.

BTW
The scriptures describe the creation process in proverbs chapter eight and calls the
creator a masterworker. Not one who merely poofs things mindlessly intro existence as your abiogenesis idea does.

Speaking of wisdom as personified and in service of creation:

Proverbs 8

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation, setting of foundations, setting limits to seas, measuring, establishment of atmospheric clouds,

Doesn't sound like God operates via a "poof!" method to me!

Since there is no proof of ANYTHING EVER having poofed into existence, I am led to believe that this explanation is wrong.

Weird since that's what abiogenesis involves-a mindless, unplanned, sudden, purposeless magical Poof!

Science merely assumes that there is a natural mechanistic explanation. You are completely right to say that science has no real proof yet on what those mechanisms would be.

We also ASSUME an ID explanation.

No one ever said that it was proof of natural abiogenesis. I certainly do not claim proof. But it is a testable hypothesis. Which makes it a scientific claim. Untested, yes. Unscientific, no.

I never claimed that the process or attempts at proving abiogenesis are unscientific or that it isn't testable. What I dispute is the 100% certainty which many claim for abiogenesis. A certainty unwarranted by the results of the scientific method itself. That's what I am calling unscientific. Claims of 100% certainty supposedly justified by nothing which justifies those claims. I keep explaining this and the accusations that I mean something else keep coming back. Which is a phenomenon that is perplexing and annoying.

 

[JoeEllison]

What joobz said. In addition, it appears to me that creationists are willing to conflate evolution and abiogenesis because they're not actually arguing about evolution. They're arguing about methodological naturalism, even if they don't know it.

Think about it. Not only do creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis, they also conflate it with cosmology. I've long since lost track of the number of times the goalposts have been shifted in that direction. To pull just one example, creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution (to be fair, it is some years since I actually heard a creationist claim this). We reply, correctly, that the earth is not a closed system, and constantly receives energy from the sun. Aha! cry the creationists. But the universe itself is a closed system, so therefore entropy cannot decrease, and therefore evolution is impossible. A ridiculous argument from a scientific point of view, but my purpose is to demonstrate that creationists do not separate different sciences.

The other thing they say is that evolution requires abiogenesis in order to get started, and so evolution is not complete unless and until abiogenesis is thoroughly explained. And in a way this is true. The mistake they make is in believing that the different branches of science depend on one another. I've actually had someone claim that until we know everything about everything, science is useless.

This is in response to you and joobz both:

I agree with both of you in principle. You are both completely correct from a scientific and philosophical standpoint. I suppose my objection is on the grounds that is the debate is to be scientific, then we should not accept scientific ignorance as a valid debate tactic, and we should call people out on it by doing more than correcting them for the nth time. If there objection is philosophical, then we should narrow the discussion to that, and remove the debate from the realm of science.

At every step, we should identify intellectual laziness, cowardice, and dishonesty, and call it out by name. Mostly, because I'm sick of seeing you guys waste your time on people like Radrook, who appear incapable of learning their OWN SIDE of the discussion, let alone learning what you have to show them.

 

[Olowkow]

The beauty of being a scientist is that if a theory that you work on turns out to be wrong, all you have wasted is money and time, but you have learned something in the process. Sooner or later, someone will create a primitive life form in a petri dish, and the controversy will begin as to whether it is really life or not, which is as it should be since primitive life was probably very close to the line of chemical vs. biological. At this point, those who claim the possibility that this process formed life on the early earth will be villified, politicians will try to halt research, religious leaders will foment outrage among followers.

Time will pass, advances will be made despite all the political and religious objections, and ultimately it will be shown that what scientists suspected in the early 21st century was correct, and life will go on with this newly found and accepted knowledge, but the world will not end. Progress in medicine will be astonishing, and eventually grow at an unheard of pace.

It is at this point that some who doubted such possibilities will be convinced by evidence, some will still not accept the facts, while yet others will seclude themselves and their familes to prevent this knowledge from infecting their minds. In short, same old same old. All we can hope is that the percentages of those accepting the facts keep getting a little higher with time. Life goes on.

 

[six7s]

What I dispute is the 100% certainty which many claim for abiogenesis.

Fairy nuff

Questions:

• How many of those with a 100% claim for abiogenesis are evolutionary biologists?

• How many of those with a 100% claim for abiogenesis are actively participating in this thread (if none, how many on this site)?

 

[six7s]

All we can hope is that the percentages of those accepting the facts keep getting a little higher with time. Life goes on.

Indeed

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

The origin of myths is explained in this way.

 

[joobz]

It's not the generation of data which leads to validations which is in question. It's the interpretations given to those observations wehich are then classed as validations that some scientists question.

??? This really makes no sense to me.
Data is observed, a hypothesis is made.
experiments are made to test that hypothesis, and prove the hypothesis is provisionally correct. This process has occured countless times for evolution. Evolution hasn't had ANY evidence which prove it wrong.

I am not one to be postulating scientific hypothesis. However, I am one who can decide which hypothesis I consider believable or not or which scientifc view seems the more acceptable to me.

I gave 17 observations which are explainable and testable to prove/disprove evolution. All support the theory. You unfortunately failed to provide any data or hypotheses which would support your disbelief.

Yep! And I can assure you, that whatever new theory replaces it-will be just as atheistically appealing as this one.

This makes no sense. Evolution isn't atheistic. it's mechanistic.

Not all scientists agree with that success-evaluation. Despite all those observations which are claimed to be 100% evidence of evolution, there are scientists who are still unconvinced and who provide reasons which I find justify doubt in relation to those conclusions said to support evolution. Such scientists have found that conclusions reached are tantamount to stretching the patient to fit the bed. I have found their arguments convincing wile you have found their arguments unsatisfactory. So it all boils down to which scientists we listen to-the present majority or a minority who also have a scientific viewpoint.

Appeal to authority. I could also mention how two major court room trials have attempted to make ID and creationism equivilent to evolution, and both times resulted in a complete victory of the evolutionary theory. I could mention that multiple scientists (christians among them) helped prove evolution in these court rooms and in countless peer reviewed articles. However, that too would be silly appeals to numbers and authority. I don't rely on others to determine if evolution is justified. Oberservation of data was enough.

And you are entitled to feel that lack of respect just as I am entitled to feel lack of respect for the abiogenesis idea due to what I choose to perceive as lack of conclusive scientific evidence and lack of inductive observation basis.

That's completely fine.
Please note that even ID is abiogeneis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non life. creationism is just that, and is therefore an abiogeneiss theory. I believe that a mechanisic method had to occur, because we can and have only seen mechanisms occur. I have NEVER seen anything Poof into existence. If you can show me evidence of ANYTHING poofing into existence, then I'll start to consider ID with a bit more consideration. As it is right now, however, there is absolutely NO proof of ID being possible.

I also find the double standards that atheistic scientists practice unethical and blatantly hypocritical. Leading me to suspect that they can't be trusted in other areas of research as well.

You keep saying "atheistic" and I don't understand this. Do you believe I'm an atheist? ID isn't science because it has no testable hypothesis and assumes a conclusion. I know you'll claim that evolution is the same, but I've given you 17 chances to disprove evolution and I haven't seen any single bit disproven.

Occurrence isn't being doubted.

But you did doubt it, because the things you said were "happy accidents" were indeed reactions. How are these not the same?

The example seems to be false analogy because we aren't speaking of things already alive such as sperm. We are speaking of inanimate matter organizing itself so that it can coding itself with the PURPOSE of replication.

But my existence is a happy accident. I was simply showing you that your analogy of "happy accidents" was wrong. Being a "happy accident" doesn't disprove these accidents from be real.

You just described the initial steps of evolution, aka abiogenesis. However, and as I have mentioned, this area is defeinitely up for grabs. However, specieation and the evolution of life into other forms of life is proven.

Of course I am incredulous! But it isn't that I don't believe that sometimes basic chemistry interactions don't occur by chance Of course chemistry interactions happen. But there is absolutely no reason for me to conclude that because basic chemistry happens, that it HAS TO happen in the way described by abiogenesis.

You are right. again, I say that we do not really know how abiogenesis(again, you claim it was ID, I believe it mechanistic) occured. This is completely correct and I agree with you. But this doesn't disprove that evolution (variatioon and diversification of life via mutation/natural selection) has been documented, observed and tested repeatedly.

In fact, there are strong scientific arguments against such a thing happening that I find very convincing. Of course, you don't. But I do.

Again, no single mechanism I've seen I've been perfectly happy with. But I believe a mechanistic approach had to occur..
Why? Becuase I have never seen anything "Poof" into existence.
If we assume we are talking about biblical creationism, I have never seen a man form out of dirt. Nor have I seen a woman form out of a rib. Therefore, I find these to be completely unreasonable explanations for life. However, I have seen chemical reactions occur. I have seen complexity form in chemical reactions from simpler chemical species.

And we know that creation via an ID had to occur.

I apologize for confusing you with my statement. I was trying to imply mechanistic abiogenesis had to occur. Rather abiogenesis (life coming from nonlife) had to occur. YOu claim it was ID, I say it mechanistic. Sorry for what seemed to be circular reasoning.

No one is claiming a "poof!" Just as no one in the abiogenesis group is claiming a "pop!"

No, but ID is and that is what I'm saying.

Actually, abiogenesis falls more under the "Poof!" description than a creator planning his creation and then executing his plan does. So what you are describing is more your own concept than the ID one.

Please note, if it turns out there is a creator, GREAT! That would be amazing. However, I am talking merely of determining what the mechanism was for life formation. If there was a creator and he used a mechanism to form life, why couldn't we just continue our research assuming that that mechanism was naturalistic? Afterall, we haven't seen any other intervention from that creator, so it would be fallacious to assume it nessessary along the whole way.

BTW
The scriptures describe the creation process in proverbs chapter eight and calls the
creator a masterworker. Not one who merely poofs things mindlessly intro existence as your abiogenesis idea does.

Speaking of wisdom as personified and in service of creation:

[/b]Proverbs[/b] 8

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation, setting of foundations, setting limits to seas, measuring, establishment of atmospheric clouds,

Doesn't sound like God operates via a "poof!" method to me!

Science is interested in those mechanisms not in the creator of the mechanisms. We see evolution occur in speciation, so if you are happy to believe in a creator, it would only logically be that he used evolutionary methods to form life. Otherwise, during creation, he intentionally implanted much data to make it look like evolution. Such data would serve no purpose other than to be missleading. (Best example, ERVs)

Weird since that's what abiogenesis involves-a mindless, unplanned, sudden, purposeless magical Poof!

we oberseve mechanisms. We have never observed god.

We also ASSUME an ID explanation.

and it ends there.
Why is there life? God did it.
Why are planets round. God likes it that way.
ID avoids answers.

I never claimed that the process or attempts at proving abiogenesis are unscientific or that it isn't testable. What I dispute is the 100% certainty which many claim for abiogenesis. A certainty unwarranted by the results of the scientific method itself. That's what I am calling unscientific. Claims of 100% certainty supposedly justified by nothing which justifies those claims. I keep explaining this and the accusations that I mean something else keep coming back. Which is a phenomenon that is perplexing and annoying.

Again, I understand you. But merely science assumes a mechanistic origin for everything. So far, ALL of science has supported such an assumption. ID doesn't do anything to determine mechanisms. As such, science tends to reject it on principle. ID avoids science and doesn't help it.

Once and for all. There may be a god and he may have created everything, including life. But it is extremely extremely likely that he created life (at least the diversity of life) via evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Mostly, because I'm sick of seeing you guys waste your time on people like Radrook, who appear incapable of learning their OWN SIDE of the discussion, let alone learning what you have to show them.

Joe, here's the thing about a lot of us who engage in the Crevo debate - we know we're going to butt up against intransigents who blinded by their religious beliefs that we're never going to make a dent in their anti-intellectual armor... but there are lurkers who read this and many other forums which discuss Crevo and some are religious, some are not. By poo pooing the philosophical aspects (philosopical vs. methodological naturalism {and explaining why the latter is necessary for science to work}) we get down to the brass tacks of the evidence and that is what the truly open-minded lurkers, religious or not, want to read and digest.

Radrook and DOC's myopic focus on abiogenesis highlights for any lurker out there how weak their case is in arguing against "evolution" because abiogenesis is a seperate issue (more chemistry and biohemistry than biology {hi lurkers }) and is a damning indictment against their ability to argue against common ancestry for all life on Earth. The fact that DOC's OP tried to suggest that all life is evolved from a universal LCA, but then shifted the goal posts to discussing abiogenesis shows how he cannot argue against all the evidence for a ULCA and the interrelatedness of all life on Earth through evolution.

{Mrs. Lovejoy}
Won't someone think of the lurkers!
{/Mrs. Lovejoy}

 

[jj]

And we know that creation via an ID had to occur.

No, WE do not, and we know that there is no need for such an explaination.

The scriptures describe the creation process in proverbs chapter eight and calls the
creator a masterworker.

Which scriptures? Was it the Garuda Bird? The Dreamtime? It it all Coyote's fault? Perhaps the souls of the ancestors got together and caused the big bang?

WHICH SCRIPTURE

It is quite telling that the OP misstated both what evolution was, and what abiogenesis was. It is also telling that Radrook, DOC, and the others can not actually argue evidence, but rather have to resort to in fact ducking the evidence and making appeals to old mythical books and an incredulity that shows they do not understand basic probablity in a very fundamental way.

 

[Radrook]

No, WE do not, and we know that there is no need for such an explaination.

That's debatable and is not a universally held opinion.

Which scriptures? Was it the Garuda Bird? The Dreamtime? It it all Coyote's fault? Perhaps the souls of the ancestors got together and caused the big bang?

Plainly, I am quoting the Bible. Or is the mindless, time wasting, screen cluttering, mocking mode coming gradually into play now?



deleted text due to unnecessary large type.

It is quite telling that the OP misstated both what evolution was, and what abiogenesis was.

You need to get your tenses right. You mean what evolution is and what abiogenesis is. That's basic grammar taught in grade school.

It is also telling that Radrook, DOC, and the others can not actually argue evidence,....

Nothing we might chance to present or say will be considered evidence by you and yours.

....but rather have to resort to in fact ducking the evidence...

What YOU have tagged conveniently as such.

....and making appeals to old mythical books....

I didn't appeal to any book at all. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would be beneficial. The only purpose in citing scripture was to dispel the notion that the Bible teaches a "poof!" approach to creation. A concept which the poster I was addressing seemed suggested.

....and an incredulity that shows they do not understand basic probability in a very fundamental way.

It only shows reading incomprehension. The scripture had NOTHING to do with probability. Try reading the info again. Maybe on the second reading it will dawn on you that you are creating strawman arguments, yelling "Pull!" and then shooting them down.

 

[arthwollipot]

Plainly, I am quoting the Bible. Or is the mindless, time wasting, screen cluttering, mocking mode coming gradually into play now?

Hear that, Radrook? That was the sound of the point sailing over your head.

Why is the Bible considered any better authority than any other sacred narrative?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why is the Bible considered any better authority than any other sacred narrative?

And more importantly - thank you TEs who are on our side - why is it that the Bible, which uses myth and metaphore is more authoritative than the Creation itself which is a testament to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and life evolving? Radrook, the rocks cry out do they not? They cry out to Genesis 1-12 being the story of mans relationship with God, not a geology or biology textbook. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

 

[joobz]

Plainly, I am quoting the Bible. Or is the mindless, time wasting, screen cluttering, mocking mode coming gradually into play now?

but then, why does that ID story more scientific than other ID stories?

Nothing we might chance to present or say will be considered evidence by you and yours.

That's just not true. I'm always willing to survey the evidence and give it complete consideration. The only thing I ask is to be willing to accept the same level of analysis I give all data.

I didn't appeal to any book at all. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would be beneficial. The only purpose in citing scripture was to dispel the notion that the Bible teaches a "poof!" approach to creation. A concept which the poster I was addressing seemed suggested.

Fair, but making man out of dirt and making women out of a rib doesn't really describe the mechanism and contradicts the scientifically proven evidence that humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees. In this regard, it can be said that the bible account is conclusively wrong. So if ID is true, it isn't likely that it is the christian god who did it.

 

[gypsey]

UnrepentantSinner

Originally Posted by JoeEllison
Mostly, because I'm sick of seeing you guys waste your time on people like Radrook, who appear incapable of learning their OWN SIDE of the discussion, let alone learning what you have to show them.

Joe, here's the thing about a lot of us who engage in the Crevo debate - we know we're going to butt up against intransigents who blinded by their religious beliefs that we're never going to make a dent in their anti-intellectual armor... but there are lurkers who read this and many other forums which discuss Crevo and some are religious, some are not. By poo pooing the philosophical aspects (philosopical vs. methodological naturalism {and explaining why the latter is necessary for science to work}) we get down to the brass tacks of the evidence and that is what the truly open-minded lurkers, religious or not, want to read and digest.

Radrook and DOC's myopic focus on abiogenesis highlights for any lurker out there how weak their case is in arguing against "evolution" because abiogenesis is a seperate issue (more chemistry and biohemistry than biology {hi lurkers }) and is a damning indictment against their ability to argue against common ancestry for all life on Earth. The fact that DOC's OP tried to suggest that all life is evolved from a universal LCA, but then shifted the goal posts to discussing abiogenesis shows how he cannot argue against all the evidence for a ULCA and the interrelatedness of all life on Earth through evolution.

{Mrs. Lovejoy}
Won't someone think of the lurkers!
{/Mrs. Lovejoy}

hi right back atcha


i learn a lot from lurking in these threads and i appreciate the time you science guys spend typing everything out for the benifit of those of us who really do want to actually learn something, thank you all so much

the difference between the science and the creationist posts is so clear that it amazes me that they can't see it for themselves

gypsey

 

[gypsey]

oops double post