Posted on 08/25/2005 10:11:22 PM PDT by Rurudyne
No joke. If you think otherwise, show otherwise.
I can see no logical, philosophical or scientific reason for this to be true.
Yea, I suppose that would work, though that doesn't make it any less tedious nor any more readable. :-)
Why yes you can, if you try hard enough. Hypothysize, collect evidence and shoot for the theory.
" I'm talking about organic ooze becoming living organic ooze. Ooze that begins to devour the unsuccessful leftovers in the organic soup as it reproduces itself."
You financing?
"If such an idea (central to naturalism) can only be inferred but not tested then it is a mere belief."
Theories are not beliefs. They are not faith, nor are they religion.
C'è 'na luna mezz'u mare
Mamma mia m'a maritare
Figlia mia a cu te dare
Mamma mia pensace tu
Se te piglio lu pesciaiole
Isse vai isse vene
Sempe lu pesce mane tene
Se ce 'ncappa la fantasia
Te pesculia figghiuzza mia
Là lariulà pesce fritt'e baccalà
Uei cumpà no calamare c'eggi'accattà
Genesis, and this is not joke.
I like it. By my rights, you're welcome to post these ideas for discussion. I agree that there is at least as much proof of some degree of intelligent design as there is of spontaneous generation of life, and that neither case can be proven (without color of prior acceptance of a belief system which describes the events, of course), with information currently available. For example, how could it be possible to make a babe like Jessica Alba without divine intervention?
Genesis? You're not being clear. Do you think literal Gen is a valid scientific topic. If so, that's been disproven for some time now.
Isn't religious doctrine merely another theory to the scientific mind? I see no reason why science not could consider both "life on Earth was created spontaneously out of primordial ooze" and "life on Earth was created by an intelligent being". The former statement is at most a hypothesis; there is nothing substantial to prove it. Even if one believes there is no substantial evidence to prove the latter, it doesn't make it less scientific to investigate the possibility - it's certainly favored by Occam's Razor.
When it gets disproven by God then I will show an interest. Otherwise, disproven by human intelligence is a far cry from factual.
ID is creationism-by-deception and its scientific merits are none. Well, that was easy enough!
No. Religious doctrine is most often pure dictate. Scientific theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence.
"I see no reason why science not could consider both "life on Earth was created spontaneously out of primordial ooze" and "life on Earth was created by an intelligent being". The former statement is at most a hypothesis; there is nothing substantial to prove it.
No one has a good enough idea to teach any kind of abiogenisis outside of college. The hypothesis says nothing more than life somehow came about naturally. That's it. This intelligent being stuff is not science whatsoever. I've already posted what the proper subject for science is. If you want to have the forces of the designer taught, bring him in for examination, so we can quantify his action and motivations. Else, he's stays in the religious class.
" Even if one believes there is no substantial evidence to prove the latter, it doesn't make it less scientific to investigate the possibility - it's certainly favored by Occam's Razor."
The latter is not a proper scientific subject, nor is it favored by Occam's razor. Occam's razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." The physics is sufficient.
What was disproven was not that God didn't create the universe. What was disproven absolutely was the claims made by certain theologians. Since man was made in the image and likeness of God, human intelligence is sufficient for man to know what is.
But there's no evidence that says life arose spontaneously from organic chemicals rather than any other way, either. If you define that as "nature", then you are basing your judgement on an unproveable belief of what nature is - which is exactly what religious doctrine does. A truly objective scientist can accept neither one as incontrovertibly established fact.
Why is it scientifically inconceivable that, if not God, some elder, sentient, and spacefaring race created Man and deposited us here, on a world suited to our needs? There's no evidence of that, but there's no evidence that life spontaneously generated here either.
I'm using the words "spontaneous" and "generated" here because the idea that life was created by chance out of non-living molecules is very similar to the last theory known as spontaneous generation. Seems sensible from a practical point of view, but that's not necessarily the case in reality.
With respect to spontaneous generation as the creator of life on Earth, to me - and I think also to our hypothetical objective scientist - that is no less fantastic than aliens or God as an explanation.
Sinful man does not have the intelligence that Adam and Eve had before the fall into sin.
Is that in the scripture or did you just make it up?
bump for a maybe reply point
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.