Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Actually, IIRC, the Bible was unique in suggesting a beginning.
In fact, science pooh-poohed the concept of a beginning until scientists proved there had to have been one.
The Bible said it long ago. Science figured it out only recently.
Shalom.
If the IDers conclude that some phenomena is the product of ID, does that mean they are opposed to any further research to discover a natural explanation for this phenomena?
That's OK. I don't want to hijack a scientific thread for a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is much to important a discipline to waste on scientific pursuits.
Shalom.
"Not the ones that keep these threads alive. The dog breeders create a fascinating variety of dogs. But they always get dogs. Everyone knows this and NOBODY is arguing about it.
As you said, things change.
The sticking point is where the dogs came from, what mechanism introduced the change from what they were to dogs, and where the long series of proto-dogs is that connects dogs to slime.
"
Humans have not been breeding dogs long enough for speciation to occur. If you want to see speciation in the canidae, you can find some very nice fossil series. It's one of the best documented in the fossil record.
Google "canidae evolution" (no quotes). You'll find a number of excellent articles on the subject.
Give us another 100,000 years or so of dog breeding, and new species will emerge. They will still be canidae, but will not be able to interbreed (the definition of species).
Give it 100 million years, and who knows what will be there.
"Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
"
Not exactly. It proved that it wasn't the cause of putrefaction. It in no way proved that abiogenesis cannot happen. It only proved that it didn't happen under the conditions of his experiments.
"Actually, IIRC, the Bible was unique in suggesting a beginning."
Well, not really. God was already there. God existed. God created.
What was God's beginning?
In reality, most creation myths start with a deity on the scene. Few have an explanation about how it got there.
Those are the types that give the rest of us a bad image. We're not taking that position. The world is waiting eagerly for the creationists to prove their theory. Let's see it.
To which I respond: First, Why don't you prove evolution?
Even if you are able (and we still see no sign of ongoing abiogenesis in the oceans of Earth), we can still take the position that Genesis 1:11-12 actually says evolution does occur. (Shocking, eh? I'll draw more fire from fellow Christians for this position than from you atheist-mongers on this one! It says, clearly, that the EARTH BROUGHT FORTH LIFE.)
To which I also respond: Since you have no evidence for ongoing abiogenesis, and since we know that conditions on the planet are ripe for Life, why is there no continually new ongoing spontaneous creation process? What's up with that, huh?
To which I also respond: There is also the implied question--since we're dealing with creation--of just what created the universe? Where did the universe come from?
Any rational mind knows the universe cannot be infinitely old. Therefore, it must have had a beginning. And things do not create things, although that is precisely what a minority of mathematicians are attempting to foist, saying that our universe was created by another universe...which was created by...uh...uh...oh, yeah, another universe, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
That's a child's game. C'mon, it's committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, for those of you who are schooled in logic and rhetoric. It's a cop-out.
Things don't create things. Universes don't create universes. Just because it's big, grand, almost imponderable, doesn't mean it has intrinsic powers to create other grand things. And we know it isn't infinitely old (due to the nature and property of infinities), so therefore, it had a beginning. Q.E.D.
Sauron
I have to quit for the day, so I can't continue this interesting discussion.
Perhaps we'll pick it up in another thread. Do, though, run those Google searches. There are some interesting articles, and not all of them are on the evolutionary side. They're worth reading.
bookmark
You have to know just where to stop asking questions to believe in a religion!
One makes hypotheses and tests those hypotheses. It if the confidence one has with the results that differs. Sometimes the confidence limits are set at .0001. Othertimes the limits are much much higher (.10, .20 etc). The scientific method of hypothesis testing is the same across the sciences and one can NEVER EVER "prove" the null hypothesis.
Be interesting to see your proof of same.
And the relevance of opinion polls to science is . . . ?
Well, ID is a young theory. It needs affirmative action.
Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudianism and Marxism into the nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are commiserating one with the other, in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather. The problem facing us...with a magnificent body of theoretical accomplishments in physics and mathematics, and a very rich body of descriptive material in biology, is to come to an understanding that when it comes to the large global issues that Darwin's theory is intended to address, we simply do not have a clue. This is a daunting admission to make, but if we're intellectually honest, we should make it. The mechanism that Darwin proposed, that of random search or a stochastic shuffle is known to be inadequate in every domain in which it's applied. It's known to be inadequate in linguistics, and it's certainly inadequate when it comes to the overwhelming complexity of living forms. There is no reason on earth to believe that this mechanism is adequate to the task that it sets itself.If it should come to pass in the fullness of time that we discover that there is no explanation for life, we will have to accept it. If it should come to pass that we discover in the fullness of time that the only explanation for life is that it is a process designed for transcendental purposes by a transcendental figure, we will have to accept that too. And if that should come to pass, I would like to ask, who among us will genuinely feel diminished?
Do viruses ever become fish? Do they ever grow arms and legs? Do they ever sit in front of a computer and type comments on Free Republic?....Nevermind, I think some viruses do.
Well, it is said, in an ancient document, that a certain Deity changed their form of locomotion as a form of punishment.
You must be at least familiar with the rudiments of Genesis, which said that snakes once existed in a form that DID NOT CRAWL ON THEIR BELLIES, aren't you?
Sauron
It would really help if David Berlinski actually knew what the heck he's arguing against--or, if he does know what he is arguing against, that he would honestly represent it instead of the parody that he argues against.
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.