Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
Saying something over and over again without supporting it is the hallmark of the propagandist. "We can't drill our way out"; "It'll be a decade before it comes on line"; "Life from non-life is unscientific".
If life from non-life is unscientific, then what about non-life from life? Popes and paramecia die. One minute they live the next minute they don't. Suddenly they begin to revert to chemicals.
Ultimately, biological death is a result of simple chemistry. People have had their heart and brain function stopped (they "died")by cooling and then had them restored by warming. Warmth is necessary for the chemical reactions that are life.
If life ceases and restarts due to chemical processes, it is reasonable to hypothesize that life originated through the evolution of chemical processes. That hypothesis is being tested in laboratories all over the world.
Will you offer some support for your statement that the study of "life from non-life is unscientific"?
I predict in a day or two the anti-science crowd will return, ignore the last 20 posts and start their screed from the beginning.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to give me an example of a change mechanism required by evolution that cannot be observed today, or which has not been observed and studied in the laboratory.
What prevents a person who has been observed to walk for several miles from walking a hundred miles, or a thousand.? This no different than the expectation in physics that Pluto, having been observed since 1930, will complete a full orbit of the sun, and that it has already completed many such orbits -- even though Pluto has not been observed to complete a full orbit.
I didn't ask for evolutionary anachronisms. I asked for an example from the fossil record of a rate of change that exceeds rates of change observed in the present.
For the Nobel prize, tell us what that is, other than the level of difficulty. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of chemists who would like to know.
OK
Species change. If you can't be honest or can't comprehend English then it is a waste of time replying to you. : )
Why would I argue with it? I agree with that.
Life from nonlify doesn’t “defy” explanation. It simply hasn’t been explained. Justs as the shape of planetary orbits were unexplained long after they were known.
Poofism isn’t science. It is always possible that poof will turn out to explain something, but it hasn’t happened since Newton.
Well, I have mixed feelings about all this.
On the one hand, I do not subscribe to the cult of the expert. I.e., I don't think that only people who have "credentials" in a field are necessarily competent to comment about things in that field. My experience, both from university and in industry, is that often times, people may have the relevant degree(s), but they are still idiots. I am a big fan of autodidacticism, and I think that a reasonably intelligent person, while not perhaps becoming an expert, can become knowledgable enough about a field of interest outside of their chosen profession that they can at least discuss it on a forum like FR.
At the same time, I don't give credibility to any old yokel who decides to comment on something about which they've invested little to no time or energy in learning.
My experience on FR and elsewhere is that the evos usually try to front about their science experience - which many of them do have - but then try to use that experience, in and of itself, as an argument, rather than dealing with the actual scientific argumentation. While I am not a biologist, I am familiar with the literature in that field, enough so as to at least be able to intelligently critique it beyond the "They think we come from monkeys!" level. Most all of what is claimed as supporting evolution in the run-of-the-mill genetics literature is really just circular reasoning - evolution is assumed beforehand, and any findings are interpreted as supporting the paradigm.
You know, of course, that I wasn’t referring to you.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t change the fact that a large number of evos do this as a hobby or belief system. Either they admit to not being a scientist or not having a scientific background, or simply refuse to answer when asked what their credentials are, which is an answer in itself. Then they go on to tell other creationists who are actual scientists that they don’t know what THEY are talking about, that they don’t understand science, don’t know what a theory is, whatever.
What a hoot. Non-scientists telling scientists that they don’t understand science just because they disagree with the evo interpretation of the fossil record.
Of all the evos on this board, you are the only one that I know of whose credentials even come close to qualifying them to speak with any real authority on the subject. The others are just well read.
And you apparently can't read. Because if you could, you would have noticed that I didn't say that abiogenesis was evolution per se, but rather that abiogenesis is the proposed mechanism which evolutionary materialists use to explain the origins of life.
That being said, as DaveLoneRanger pointed out, the "abiogenesis is not evolution" argument is a red herring, and nothing more. While not dealing with natural selection in and of itself, abiogenesis is a materialist proposition for the origin of life, which puts it within the greater framework of "evolution" as the term is generally used in everyday parliance.
As an organic chemist, describe for me the chemical processes involved in the Biblical creation. Did God use the laws of physics, or did He use magic?
I don't have to because God's method of creation is outside the direct competence of science to address - something which I've never denied. Of course, so is the "billions and billions of years" hypothesis of the evolutionists - science can no more reproduce that through experimentation than it can God's act of creation. NEITHER are "science" in the basic sense of the term.
One thing that organic chemistry does do, however, is falsify the various materialistic abiogenetic theories which evolutionists have floated so as to provide a non-supernatural origin of life. That IS science.
Doubtful. Social autism arises more from the fact that a person chooses to be a jerk, than anything else. Hence, you're a social autist.
Oh, and by the way, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to trade on your son's autism, merely so you can try to deflect some well-deserved criticism on this forum. That's just sick and wrong.
I appreciate the Christian thoughts too.
I can't think of any reason why I should refrain from criticising your consistently obnoxious behaviour towards other members of this forum, or why you think you are particularly deserving of Christian charity from me.
Thank you.
By insisting that evolutionary threads be given the same level of protection from dissenters as prayer threads, you place them on equal footing. Effectively, you are showing that crevo threads are to you what prayer threads are for someone else...while trying to make the point that evolution has no aspect of faith involved!
***Good post. I was going to say pretty much the same thing. But I happen to think that it would be a welcome change to have such evolutionism threads. There’s always the chance to have the brick-throwing open threads as well.
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.