Well BroJoeK....I hardly know where to begin so this will be somewhat lengthy.
I’ll start by referring to the first of your 3 posts.
*****I’ll say again, your basic problem is, you don’t actually know ANY real science.*****
How could you possibly know this to be true? You spend a lot of time in these posts refuting things I never said and putting words in my mouth. I am very well read on the subject of science and will gladly have a rational discussion with you on any area that you choose.
*****That’s why I recommend you read the Scott book — it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn’t say.******
Are there no other science books but this one? I don’t have to read it (though I might) to know that if it is written by Eugenie Scott it is a very one-sided view. Her whole existence is devoted to pushing anything that has to do with Intelligent Design theory to the curb.
***For example, there’s certainly no recent scientific theory of “spontaneous generation” of life from puddles of mud.***
The following popular High School level Science text books teach that spontaneous generation is one way that life could have formed out of the “primordial soup”...what I refer to as a “mud puddle”:
Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Glencoe/McGraw Hill, 2006
Biology: Exploring Life, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006
Biology, Holt Rhinehart and Winston, 2006
Biology, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006
I might add that these are four of the most popular text books used at the High School level.
****That’s because any REAL scientist would begin to investigate this question by first asking, “what is life?” Well, a relatively simple bacteria is surely alive, but is a virus? What about ancient precursors of life? Are there any naturally occurring chemical compounds which might behave in somewhat “lifelike” fashion, etc., etc.?****
No matter how you describe life, it begs the question “How did it begin”?
***Remember, from a scientific perspective, we are dealing with hundreds of millions, even billions of years, during which the very simplest forms were the ONLY forms to leave traces in the fossil record.***
As a young earth creationist, I disagree with your premise, but I’ll play along..... (incidentally there are many evidences of a young earth that are ignored by secular science. I’ll be glad to provide them if you’d like.)
Hemoglobin is made up of a chain of 287 amino acids. There are 20 amino acids used to build life. Macro-evolutionary theory says that random processes (some say directed by natural selection) are responsible for the building of life.
We know from High School math that the probability of getting the first amino acid in the chain is 1/20, to get the first 2 would be 1/400 (1/20 X 1/20), etc. until you reach the 287th amino acid. This number has 373 zeros in it.
Hemoglobin is but one protein out of 10,000 proteins (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, scientists put the number of proteins in the human body at between 10,000 and 50,000) in the human body.
You can say the earth is a trillion years old, it’s still not enough time. Imagine a trillion scientists trying a trillion combinations of amino acids every second for a trillion years trying to come up with hemoglobin....at the end of that time they would have made about 3.1 X 10^34 attempts....obviously this number has 34 zeroes in it.
It’s just not possible to even get hemoglobin, much less the other 10,000.
****schaef21:”In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory.”****
Let me clarify this for you....these scientists signed the following statement:
“ We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
****”Problems with the theory”? Do you mean, scientists who say that some early organic compounds may have arrived on earth inside comets or meteors? That’s not a “problem with the theory?”****
This comment begs the question “where did that life come from”...in essence you’ve just moved the problem, you haven’t solved it.
****But your implication of an actual “700 scientists,” who oppose the theory of evolution and subscribe instead to “Intelligent Design,”****
Please show me where I said that....I most certainly didn’t. You are once again putting words in my mouth.
I’m quite sure there are any number of them who don’t subscribe to ID, it doesn’t say....it merely states that they dissent from Darwin.
***is I’m certain is a flat out lie.***
This is the third time now that you’ve called me a liar, the last two times you called me a liar for things that I never said.
***That’s because I’m not aware of ANY serious scientist***
If you’ll go to the website (Please, I encourage you to at least look at it if you are going to disparage these scientists who come from major Universities around the world including the Ivy League Schools, MIT, Cambridge...I could list a lot more but why don’t you go there and have a look yourself) you’ll see that these are “serious scientists”.
***who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.***
Scientists who believe in ID and write papers on ID can’t get them published. Go see the documentary
Expelled” and you’ll see why. People get fired for going against the scientific orthodoxy....
****THAT’s what makes your pretense of “science” so fraudulent. You are not in the least science — by your own words, you are ANTI-SCIENCE.****
You will be hard pressed to find anywhere that I say I am “anti-science”. (My own words) I am not. Science is a marvel to me. The complexity of DNA, genetic information, the cosmos....scientific inquiry is something that I admire, study and as I said above it is a marvel to me.
There are 2 ways that life could have come about:
1. On it’s own.
2. By the hand of a Creator
Secular science says: “OK, before we examine the evidence, we are going to reject #2”.
I say that’s bogus. Imagine a detective who is called on to determine whether a death was murder or suicide and ruling out one of the two before he starts. He might come to a lot of wrong conclusions based on his starting premise.
As I stated in an earlier post, that’s ok with me, they can rule out #2.....but they then should admit sometimes that the solution they seek might reside outside the realm of science.
****And your pretense otherwise is just despicable.****
What pretense is that? I’m really curious. You said in an earlier post that you are a “Theistic Evolutionist”. In order to be one you have to believe in a God who created (maybe not the God of the Bible but a god nonetheless). Why this hostility toward me? We are both starting with the same premise.
***By the way, this is exactly the point which distinguishes anti-evolution from anti-”global warming.” In the global warming debate, there ARE actual scientists, who do real scientific work on the subject of climate change,
who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.***
So are you saying that any scientist (see again the list on www.dissentfromdarwin.com) who disagrees with you doesn’t do any real scientific work?
***who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.***
There are many scientists, even evolutionists, who are pointing out the many flaws in the theory of evolution. As you know, because it’s in an earlier post, it is my belief that those flaws should be pointed out in the classroom. This is not ID, Creationism or anything else of that sort. There is no need to bring a Deity into the classroom in order to point out these flaws.
I’ll ask this question....shouldn’t science class present a topic truthfully?
****In my view, your anti-evolution “scientists” are far more akin to the so-called historians who work at the Institute for Historical Research, trying to “prove” the Holocaust never happened!****
This statement is ridiculous on its face, BroJoe. Your putting the word “scientists” in quotation marks doesn’t diminish them. Invective is not an argument, it’s not proof and it’s not evidence....it is merely invective.
****It’s all a fraud and mascarade, and you guys really ought to go do something more honorable.****
It’s funny that you should use the word fraud.....there are “proofs” of evolution in the text books that our kids study that have been proven fraudulent (not just false but fraudulent) a long time ago but are still in the books. You can start with an examination of Haeckel’s embryos.
On to your next post, #1409. I’ve been following the global warming hoax for some time. I believe I’ve touched on your argument above, so I won’t go there again.
Thank you as well for this post on Augustine. I’ve studied him and he’s a very interesting character....remember that he is just a man like you and I, albeit a very intelligent man. It might be worth your time to investigate the context of the times in which he spoke and what was going on in the church at that time.
I apologize for this very lengthy post but I felt compelled to address all of your issues. Please note that I did not call you names, insult your intelligence or use any other kind of invective in responding to you.
I’d appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy. If you don’t, I’ll not respond again. I love a critical and rational discussion on this topic and would enjoy continuing....but I will not if you continue to insult.
Best regards to you.
1. On it’s own.
2. By the hand of a Creator
Secular science says: “OK, before we examine the evidence, we are going to reject #2”."
In your lengthy response, I'll take this as the core of your argument. So, we'll start here. And much of my words will just be repeats of what was said before, which obviously didn't sink in the first time. So, I'll try again.
Your statement above is a lie on several levels, and I'm pretty certain, a deliberate lie, just because that's the kind of guys you are. Truth telling just doesn't come natural to you, does it?
To tell the truth, you must first acknowledge the difference between science and religion. Science, by definition, deals ONLY with the natural - material world. Anything outside that world -- anything spiritual, supernatural, divine, metaphysical, religious, moral, etc., even most philosophical questions, are outside the realms of science. Science can't and doesn't deal with those.
So a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory.
Of course, there are any number of potential ways that life could have risen & evolved, but science is LIMITED by what the physical evidence allows.
The physical evidence shows fossils in geological strata, rising from simple early forms to more complex modern features. The DNA evidence shows greater similarities among more closely related species than among distantly related species.
These are the kinds of facts that science must deal with.
Of course, science COULD look at the hypothesis that earth's life forms -- some or all of them -- were somehow planted here by, basically, little green ET folks who travel the galaxy growing gardens of Eden on barren planets!
Or, less exotically, that some kinds of life (or pre-life) arrived inside comets or asteroids.
But what physical evidence do we have of anything like that? None.
And even if convincing evidence for such things were found, it would only suggest the question: where and how did that life arise? Scientifically, the problem remains the same, regardless of where or how.
Now, I'll say again, there are many questions for which science has no answer, for example: "what happened before the Big Bang?" Since there is no evidence, there can be no scientific answer, beyond speculation. Since science has no materialistic answer, philosophical answers based on reason (i.e., First Cause) or religious answers based on revelation (i.e., "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") are the only answers we can turn to.
But where you have an enormous wealth of physical evidence, such as the fossil and DNA records, then science can have a literal field day, developing hypotheses and theories as to how all this came about NATURALLY.
That's the business of science -- it's what science does. So it's almost inconceivable that, even in the face of literal mountains of physical evidence, science would throw up its hands and say: "we give up, science can't explain it, because this all can't have a natural explanation, it must be outside the realm of science, so we'll let the philosophers & theologians answer this one!" Sorry, but that just ain't goin to happen -- not ever!
And here's the bottom line: science deals only in the natural material world, and its defenders accept only natural material theories to explain it. So if the evidence (or lack of evidence) can't support a scientific theory, then science has NO ANSWER for that question.
Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER "SCIENCE," BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
Your refusal to acknowledge these basic concepts is what makes you a liar, and that's a fact by definition, not a personal attack. Of course, you can change that instantly -- just confess the truth.
BroJoeK: "I'll say again, your basic problem is, you don't actually know ANY real science. That's why I recommend you read the Scott book -- it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn't say.
schef21: "How could you possibly know this to be true? You spend a lot of time in these posts refuting things I never said and putting words in my mouth. I am very well read on the subject of science and will gladly have a rational discussion with you on any area that you choose."
I say you are ignorant, because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you truly know as much about science as you claim, then you have to be lying, and I was hoping not to falsely accuse you.
Here's what Wikipedia says about the The Law of Biogenesis:
"Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."
Note the precise language: "MODERN ORGANISMS do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."
But modern scientific hypotheses regarding the Origins of Life do NOT claim MODERN life "popped" spontaneously out of Darwin's mud puddles.
Instead, they say that life slowly, slowly, slowly, step by step by step by step developed over long, long, long periods of time -- as utterly lifeless organic chemicals combined and recombined and recombined until some of them began to behave in ways that seem to us somewhat lifelike, but not really.
These very very simple chemical combinations could form a membrane, ingest other chemicals, and even reproduce. They were not alive, but at this point natural selection could take over, and those which performed all the life-like functions the best would survive and reproduce the most. And of course, those which did not would become food for the others.
Scientists have been working for many years now to demonstrate exactly how all this might have happened. My guess is, eventually they'll come of with detailed scenarios that can be demonstrated in a lab.
Let me clarify this for you....these scientists signed the following statement:
“ We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”"
First of all, I question your implication that ANY of these folks are actual working scientists, in any field related to biological evolution, or that any of them have ever published anything in any recognized scientific journal having anything to do with evolution.
Second of all, the statement is meaningless, since scientists by their very nature are trained to be skeptical -- it's what they do, it's how they work; and "careful examination" is just what's SUPPOSED to be taught in schools.
Third of all, I would hazard to bet that the signed statement is utterly disengenuous, since it's real intent is to promote the teaching of religious ideas in public science classes.
And if that was truly NOT the purpose, then you wouldn't be advertising it, would you?
BroJoeK: "who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.***
schaef21: "Scientists who believe in ID and write papers on ID can’t get them published. Go see the documentary Expelled” and you’ll see why. People get fired for going against the scientific orthodoxy...."
Here's an example why I say you are being dishonest and disingenuous with us.
You begin by suggesting that these are actual scientists, working at major universities in fields somehow related to evolution, who are only SCIENTIFICALLY skeptical of evolution. Reading their statement, a normal person might even suppose they are all applying for JOBS in scientific research departments!
But in the end, you let slip out the real truth, which is that these are actually religiously motivated people who want to insert the UNSCIENTIFIC idea of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in public science classes.
Sorry, but I don't think there's ANY way you can do it honestly. Creationism or Intelligent Design, whatever you want to call it, is a religious or philosophical idea without ANY supporting physical evidence. It should CERTAINLY be taught in philosophy & religion classes. But it should not be allowed to masquerade as science.
Yes, I understand your counter-argument: that science itself is dishonest and disingenuous, in not permitting research or publications in ID related subjects. But if you are going to run around calling all of science "liars," should you not expect to receive similar words in response?
Now, finally I'm going to tell you a secret, but it's just between you and me -- don't tell anybody else. Listen carefully: do you want to correct science? Do you want to defeat science, take them over, make them listen to you? OK, here's how you do it... shhhhhhhhhhh.... don't tell.
You begin with the seven magic words: "let me help you solve that problem." When you can solve science's problems for them, they will pay some attention to you. But as long as you're just throwing rocks at them, all you'll get is rocks in return (crack open the rock, look for a fossil...)