Ruprecht: "May I go the bathroom?"
M. Cain : "Why certainly,...."
Ruprecht: [slumps in chair relieving himself]
.,..Classic.
Posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher.
Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life.
The findings are being discussed at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth.
It is taking place at the Royal Society in London.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof.
Gosh, how did you get to be spring-loaded to the pissed-off position? The point I was making is precisely the point most creationists and ID-iots seem to miss.
Nice talking to you.
"Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof."
___________________________________
Hmmm. well science has proved the earth is round, that the planets rotate around the sun, that dinosaurs existed...etc etc
How about this..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."
What does this article have to do with evolution? It offered no information for or against ID either. What are you talking about.
That's mathematics, not "science". But of course you knew that.
Semantically, there is no "proof" in science.
Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?
Maybe.
The "theory" of how the first living cell came to be has always intrigued me. No matter what anyone calculates as the odds against it, naturalists will always reply that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."
So how could this "theory" possibly be disproven? It can't be disproven. But, as evolutionists constantly claim, that means it is unscientific! Remember, a theory must be "falsifiable" to be scientific.
The idea that science will someday be able to explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic means (with no intelligent design) is really just a hope and a dream (or an assumption) of evolutionists. The problem is that they have a very bad habit of confusing those hopes and dreams (and assumptions) with science.
Good point. Since the announcement that two more dimensions of "time" may have been found, space could well be wrapped around the ever present existential "I", and everything else could be little more than a projection of some sort.
Warm pond? I thought this thread was going to be about peeing in the pool.
Co-inkydinkily, I just read this yesterday:
Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?
Maybe arguing logic with liberals and evolutionists is equally pointless.
Ruprecht: "May I go the bathroom?"
M. Cain : "Why certainly,...."
Ruprecht: [slumps in chair relieving himself]
.,..Classic.
The very same hypothesis I always seemed to end up pondering whenever I was stoned in the 70's.
Coincidence?
Wonder when people will ever bother to learn enough about biology and/or Darwin to snap to the fact that the origin of life is in no way any part of "Darwin's theory".
Evolutionary biology, and Darwin's writings about it, deal entirely with how life changes once it's here, not how it started or where it came from.
While it's true that biologists investigate *both* fields of study (as well as many others), they are *different* fields of biology. Origin of life questions are no part of "Darwin's theory" or evolutionary biology, just as where the atmosphere may have come from originally is no part of (and irrelevant to) meteorology, which is the study of how the atmosphere behaves and changes now that it's here.
Maybe if someone would ever start arguing with "evolutionists" based on logic, we'd actually be able to test that hypothesis. Almost without exception, though, people end up trying to argue against evolutionary biology via misrepresentations, misunderstandings, fallacies, and lies (2). Hearing anti-evolutionists try to "refute" biology (and physics, and geology, and...) is like listening to a Michael Moore fan try to dispute conservatism, and for exactly the same reasons.
When and where?
..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."
How about this, we start with the definition of science and its method. Science is the observation of a material thing that exists in nature (fact) and there is evidence and empirical evidence for the fact and would provide a logical explanation (theory) for the observance of the fact. You are correct, science cannot explain everything. By definition it cannot explain the unknown or something that occurs that is not of a material existence. It cannot explain any faith or belief of the unknown or gravity. Faith and belief are observed by philosophy, gravity is observed by mathematics.
That simply doesn't matter. They both attempt to explain the complexity of life, either it's origins, or its variations, with a mechanism that has no possibility of producing those results.
And that mechanism is the same. Chance events, and long periods of time, combine (with the help of another inadequate factor in the case of evolution...selection) to produce the most complex, intricate, and purposeful structures known.
So then, the Earth isn't round, and planets don't go around the Sun, and science never proved it, and is not capable of proving it because science can't prove anything. Is that your position?
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.