Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
She has reserves of patience I lack. I've read the same tired old arguments repeated again and again, and in general I know they're not made with any intent to engage in debate. In your case in particular, I haven't seen any particular tendency to open-mindedness. You treat 'materialist' as a pejorative, in the same manner you criticize in others. Couple that with gross ignorance about science (c.f. that stuff about inorganic formed into organic) , and you fit the standard model of the Ugly Creationist. Sorry.
> Ah, the special ingredient: time ..."a hundred million years." And that's supposed to do the trick? Somehow? While nobody is looking? In some isolated place? When in fact we cannot replicate such a perfect primordial ennvironment in any lab?
We'll never be able to replicate the way fusion happens in the sun (through compression just from having a lot of hydrogen in one place) in a lab either, so I guess we'd better "teach the controversy" on that one too. Actually I guess we'll probably need to throw away any science that can't be replicated in a short time in something the size of a science lab, which throws out pretty much all of astronomy and geology too. whoops, I guess we can't sustitute ID and creationism since they can't replicate that in a lab either.
>Time plus a lab can't do it but a primordial environment plus time could?
Yes. If the primordial earth was only a few gallons of water and organic molecules in a lab and it only had one year to create life, we all accept that life was created in some other fashion (either the creationist "poof" hypothesis or aliens). If it was instead the whole earth and there were millions upon millions of years available (as there were), than I accept the scientific explanation. If you don't understand how having millions of years and the whole earth as a lab changes the probabilities, well then I don't know what to say.
Likewise, if you are an young earth creationist, you have no argument with evolutionary biology - your argument is with geology, physics, and astronomy - no biologist believes in common descent happening in only 6000 years. In fact, biologists won't even accept the ridiculous rate of evolution that the noah's ark creationist "theory" relies on.
>Which is what I also have been taught, which is why I am confused when folks use Darwin in the same sentence with an origin of life idea.
Darwin didn't have much to say about the subject. It would have been hard to say much at the time, since they knew essentially nothing (compared to now) about the chemical structure of life.
The reason people say this is:
(a) the first replicators didn't come into existence through evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection, mutation, etc).
Biological evolutionary mechanisms rely on reproduction and inheritable traits.
(b) if it were discovered that abiogensis were impossible on this planet or evidence were discovered that the first replicators came from elsewhere, evolution and common descent would still be just as true.
>>>If we don't allow a tiny possibility that what we believe may be wrong, it's not science. It's called faith.<<<
LOL. Some of that 'faith' can be attributed to the need for job security and self-preservation. Many unproductive scientific careers could be destroyed if the myth of Evolution is exposed. LOL.
Please post some examples of unproductive scientific careers that would be destroyed. Be specific.
Or are you just making things up?
When one thinks of the kudos, wealth, and everlasting fame that would accrue to anyone who broke ranks and produced evidence that ToE is wrong (and note that even people like Behe, Denton, and Dembski accept common descent and the great age of the earth) and the zero benefit of keeping quiet than you have to be particularly paranoid believer in giant conspiracies to think that somehow scientists are all engaged in some pointless con-game to perpetuate a falsehood aimed at discrediting a particular branch of Christianity, to no benefit to those in the conspiracy.
Secondly, if you look at how jennyp answered my questions, she dialogued with me and lit a path for me to follow. I did not get labeled and dismissed by her as I did with you.Thanks, but I thought RWP's response was nice & succinct, as was js1138's. :-) The internal contradiction of your "lab experiment inherently proves ID" argument is something you do have to consider.
And ironically the attempts at starting life up are a model for what you think you're disproving: intelligent design.
Lovely variant on a standard creationist canard.
Creationist: evolution has never been proven. You can't even duplicate it in a lab.
Scientist: sure I can, look, I grow this population under selective pressure, it changes, that's evolution.
Creationist: but you did it in a lab. It's a designed experiment! That's no[t] evolution, it's ID!
I think perhaps you are only looking at old information. Please start reading new information. Curious scientists do that. All scientists should be curious.
Besides the more than 400 scientists that do not believe in the evolution theory that you probably heard about, or are skeptical, here are more:
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005 · Last updated 11:28 a.m. PT
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html
Has anyone got a list of these 700 delegates, their institutions, and qualifications?
Sorry if this question has already been asked.
P.S. 700 is included in the title of this thread alone, so I don't know why you think it's only 401. 700 + 401 = 1101. :)
From just what you said, you could be a theistic evolutionist like probably half the evo posters, but of course you aren't. What makes a creationist? Argument from religious horror. Religious horror tells one that the more of science we refute and discard, the better. Religious horror says 150 years of evidence equals "no evidence." Religious horror says that what we prefer to believe trumps fact.
Maybe the poster who started the thread might have info., but I don't know about the 700.
HOWEVER, here are 400 scientists with their institutions, etc.
Updated July, 2005
Here are over 400 scientists, and their credentials who are skepitcal and say "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be examined.":
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
Now as an aside, the ACLU in Dover is suing a school board for simply reading a 4 paragraph statement to the students saying that there is another theory, Intelligent Design. The ACLU censors any HINT of God whenever they can.
Firstly that list of 400 is not mostly biologists. Secondly the exact statement that they signed up to is one that any scientist could say about any scientific theory. Thirdly it is possible to doubt natural selection as the sole mechanism for evolution without doubting for example common descent. Now, have you got that delegate list, given the poverty of the 400 so far I'd be really interested in seeing who went to the prague conference.
...and finally, several have asked to be removed.
"Firstly that list of 400 is not mostly biologists. Secondly the exact statement that they signed up to is one that any scientist could say about any scientific theory. Thirdly it is possible to doubt natural selection as the sole mechanism for evolution without doubting for example common descent. Now, have you got that delegate list, given the poverty of the 400 so far I'd be really interested in seeing who went to the prague conference."
1) I never said they were mostly biologists.
2) I am glad that these 400 scientists are open minded, rather than blindly believing Darwin's theory. I wish the scientists that are stuck on believing evolution would be more curious, too.
3) Already told you in a previous thread that I did not have the credentials of the 700. Am I supposed to have it? Have you done a search yourself?
4) "poverty of the 400" - sounds like some kind of pseudo put down to discredit them. Don't you like scientists who are open-minded, and look to new information, rather than being stuck in the past?
"...and finally, several have asked to be removed."
Several doesn't sound like many to me. :)
Would you happen to know who they are, and why?
No matter, their exact field of relevance is still important however, and to get to 400 they had to include MDs, dentists, computer scientists, particle physicists, philosophers etc
2) I am glad that these 400 scientists are open minded, rather than blindly believing Darwin's theory. I wish the scientists that are stuck on believing evolution would be more curious, too.
Who says they aren't curious. Show us the evidence that they should be examining that undermines 150 years of sucessful predictions by ToE. Show us the successful predictions and startling insights that ID has led to. Oh sorry, 10,000 years is too soon to expect any results from religion-centred beliefs. The IDers need more time...
3) Already told you in a previous thread that I did not have the credentials of the 700. Am I supposed to have it? Have you done a search yourself?
If you want me to take them seriously I'd like to know who they are. You haven't told me anything about them in a previous thread, so you must be mistaking me for someone else.
4) "poverty of the 400" - sounds like some kind of pseudo put down to discredit them. Don't you like scientists who are open-minded, and look to new information, rather than being stuck in the past?
The idea that is stuck in the past is creationism in its many forms, that include ID. It is about 10,000 years old and has so far produced no results of any value. All the achievements of science in the last 400 years come out of methodological naturalism.
None so blind as those who don't want to see.
I think we are having trouble communicating here, and I only have a minute, so I'll leave you with this food for thought:
The Bible said the world was flat 2,000 years before Columbus was even born:
Flat Versus Round Earth
For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist scripture. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world. This provided empirical proof for many that the world was round. But the round earth was recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible long before.
The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the "circle of the earth." Solomon wrote, "He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep." Proverbs 8:27. In our century, Arabs spoke of infidels being pushed over the edge into space. About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God.
excerpt
http://www.godsplan.org/nl_godofscience.cfm
Yes. Non-profit corporations pay their employees.
Numerous easy observations available for example to any mariner show instantly that the earth is a sphere. Its approximate size was calculated to reasonable accuracy by the ancient greeks and ancient egyptians amongst others. But Columbus took no notice.
Further, many biblical verses are at best ambivalent about the geometry of the earth. Amongst many examples that wouldn't help your case Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain, possible on a flat earth and impossible on a sphere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.