Skip to comments.
Scientists find evolution of life
EurekAlert ^
| 10/30/03
Posted on 10/30/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by Dales
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 621-639 next last
To: balrog666; MissAmericanPie
The individual scientist is free to be biased, opinionated, speculative, or just plain nuts. The integrity of science does not depend on the integrity of the individual. And everyone is eventually at least partially obsolete.
Nothing new would ever be discovered if scientists didn't speculate. Newton speculated about the behavior of objects in a vacuum, although he had never seen anything approaching a perfect vacuum, nor did he have any way of demonstrating that space was a near vacuum, although he assumed such.
241
posted on
10/31/2003 8:50:50 AM PST
by
js1138
To: gore3000
If God created life the evolutionist assumption that all change is due solely to materialistic forces cannot be sustained. That is not an assumption of evolution. Scientific evidence indicates that all life descended from a common ancestor; the LUCA, or last universal common ancestor. Where the LUCA came from cannot be probed by most of the tools of evolution - for example, you can't do phylogenetic analysis on a single unbranched line. I suppose in principle you could do analysis on the LUCA's genes, but except in a few cases (e.g. ribosomal proteins) that may never be practical.
The LUCA could have been transported to earth from another planet, it could have arisen abiogenetically; or it could have been created by a higher being. Deciding between these possibilities doesn't really impact evolution.
To: balrog666
"There's no such thing. Scientists are human too; they just tend to get excited by learning new things. I would say that insatiable curiosity and a keen sense of humor are why they become scientists in the first place." A good scientist must be both--passionate in pursuit of new ideas, but dispassionate in his examination of the data "testing" those ideas. And yes, achieving that seemingly contradictory state is hard, indeed.
To: js1138
I'm talking about deliberately restricting their speculations in only one direction, the other direction, being off limits.
To: MissAmericanPie
"I'm talking about deliberately restricting their speculations in only one direction, the other direction, being off limits." But those aren't "scientists", they are simply the newest category in "the oldest profession".
To: All
Amazing.
Four threads up in two days. Over 400 replies made on them.
Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. Not a single email about abuse.
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads. Good. Let's keep it this way.
246
posted on
10/31/2003 10:43:59 AM PST
by
Dales
To: CobaltBlue
That which you call "the devil" is a created being who has turned away from God, If everything God created was good, as the Bible states, then how could anything He created turn away from Him (which would be bad)? Since He did not create evil, who did? My point is that you can't logically have a world of both good and evil powers created by an "Only Power" which is "Only Good". You have to believe in two powers or gods and that is contrary to monotheism (Christianity).
"Evil" can only result from free will. Only man can do evil
That means evil is a creation of man. So man can create what God did not? Man has the power to rival God? God created man in His image (good), how can the image of good create evil?
247
posted on
10/31/2003 10:59:14 AM PST
by
Semper
To: MissAmericanPie
Scientist seldom speculate in the direction of supernatural causes because the fundamental hypothesis of science is that the laws of nature are constant over time. The search for explanations in science is the search for rules that are consistent over time.
Asking a scientist to assume, as a starting point, that an event is the result of a miracle, is simply not going to happen. It isn't the way science works; it isn't what science does.
This doesn't mean that there aren't miracles, and it doesn't mean that all scientists disbelieve in miracles. It simply means that the definition of science is the search for naturalistic explanations.
248
posted on
10/31/2003 11:05:28 AM PST
by
js1138
To: Semper
Evil isn't a thing, and it's not a being. It can't be created. It's a state of mind.
A human being who has no mind, like a child, or a severely retarded person, or a severely brain damaged person, cannot do evil. Animals, which are mindless, cannot do evil.
The Rabbis have a hypothetical that they pose to their students. It's a hot night in Jerusalem, and everybody is sleeping outside. A man is sleeping on his roof, and a woman is sleeping in her courtyard. In the middle of the night, he gets an erection while he is sleeping. Coincidentally, a strong wind blows him off the roof, on top of the woman, and without any intention of his own, in a freak accident he penetrates her. When he realizes what is happening, he is horrified, and jumps up and covers himself. Was this rape?
The answer, of course, is no. The man did not have any evil intention - although for his sake, I hope he has a very good lawyer!
249
posted on
10/31/2003 11:09:42 AM PST
by
CobaltBlue
(Is there a lawyer ping list?)
To: js1138
I don't believe in miracles, I believe in a command of physics, or something beyond physics, beyond quantum mechanics, that we have not attained to yet, but can and will.
I just hate to see the possibilities delayed because of the fear of looking silly studying magic wands, or clues left us by a book that some maintain isn't the oldest, but certainly covers the history of the father and mother of the chinese, along with the rest of us, and the history of the earth and it's earth ages.
I'm saying that science based some of it's studies on alot of mis conceptions and flawed deductions and directions, evolution as an explination for the mutation of species from one animal into another animal for example, carbon dating that might be a flawed measure in some instances. Start fresh, with a fresh mind, from another direction with different set of conceptions to base their studies on using the clues left in the Bible for instance and plugging in what has been provable when it fits and is needed from past scientific studies.
What would happen if science set aside the assumption that creeping things had to have an earlier start than what scripture maintains, as a "yet to be proven". Science certainly set aside alot of things while they maintained that one animal evolved into another, proping up evolution, why can't they do the same for seeing if the bible will save them alot of time and misdirection? I feel very confident that it would and will if it's given the opportunity.
I have never looked at the bible as just a history book, or a book of fables, or moral lessons, to me it's also futuristic in the most exciting way. I have every confidence that mankind will never end and that what he can accomplish has no limits and that we need have no fear of losing the light of the sun, or expanding out into dark nothingness and I know that science will finally come to that realization itself eventually. I just get exasperated at the limits and the pace of science that I feel sometimes is self inflicted.
To: MissAmericanPie
I don't believe in miracles, I believe in a command of physics, or something beyond physics, beyond quantum mechanics, that we have not attained to yet, but can and will. This pretty much describes the history of science. What's missing from your scenerio is the necessity of doing the dirty work, digging in the trenches, coming up with verifiable hypotheses, having ideas checked by others for self-consistency and consistency with other known facts. In short, science speculates, but does not try to inhabit the castles it builds in the air. Having said this, I have to admit that scientists, as individuals, can have looney political ideas and write looney tracts for the public. But every family has a crazy aunt in the closet.
251
posted on
10/31/2003 11:52:52 AM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
I'm not saying the dirty work in the trenches is not neccessary. I'm just saying as long as they are in the business of speculating and then following that speculation with an accumulation of impherical evidence, why not consider aiming their speculations in the direction I suggest? It will save time.
To: MissAmericanPie
...why not consider aiming their speculations in the direction I suggest? It will save time.That's what socialists say about the economy. If we know in advance what direction we need to go, why not just let the best and the brightest just plan it and eliminate all this wasteful competition.
I'm not sure how to convince you that unplanned economies are better than planned economies, or that free competition in the realm of ideas is better than just taking a shortcut to the truth.
253
posted on
10/31/2003 12:29:14 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Jim Robinson; f.Christian; All
'And now you know the REST of the story!
(>/paulharveyvoice) ;^)
254
posted on
10/31/2003 12:30:55 PM PST
by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: gore3000
AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!
The Blue Man, again!
255
posted on
10/31/2003 12:35:53 PM PST
by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: Dales
Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. So the tricks are as follows:
- In post #1, warn: "This would be a very poor thread to choose to engage in flamewarring or flamebaiting."
- Post under the name Dales, Ms. AntiFeminazi, or JohnHuang2.
To: js1138
That's comparing apples and oranges. Here's the thing, not only was there a sudden explosion of species, the earth was a sudden event also. That fact slaughters the sacred cow known as carbon dating, because the fact that the earth sprang into being fully formed and mature makes that dating method a dead issue.
I read where there is a certain kind of radiation that has a half life of something like .034 of a second found trapped inside granite, and there was speculation that granite had to have just come into being in an instant to trap that radiation. They may have found other explinations for that now like gas, etc, I haven't followed it.
But wouldn't it save time if scientist speculated in the direction of an instantaneous earth? If scientist had began with the theory that some species developed suddenly and in the same time frame, wouldn't the evidence to support that have been found much sooner and wouldn't that have saved time? If they look into when this event happened and find that it coincides with the time period that the earth was watered from a mist rising from the ground they could then tie man's appearance on earth as his being a part of that sudden species eruption and therefore existed at the time that the earth was watered by a mist rising from the earth.
Likewise if they begin with the speculation that the earth was also an instantaneous event and then gather their evidence based on that theory, it could save decades of time at the least. I feel confident some young bright turk will come along and slaughter alot of sacred cows, it's just a shame he will have to endure the wrath and loss of prestige that organized science will heap on him.
To: MissAmericanPie
But wouldn't it save time if scientist speculated in the direction of an instantaneous earth?That was the original assumption of science several hundred years ago. The evidence has led elsewhere.
258
posted on
10/31/2003 1:13:45 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Physicist
Don't feel like starting an argument today, sorry.
259
posted on
10/31/2003 2:17:06 PM PST
by
vpintheak
(Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
To: Dales
Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. Not a single email about abuse.
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads. Good. Let's keep it this way.
I dunno. It tells me "when the cat's away the mice will play"!
260
posted on
10/31/2003 2:52:57 PM PST
by
jennyp
(http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 621-639 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson