Replies

ToE doesn’t submit valid “empirical evidence” that makes sense to me when it comes to origins. Not even close. That life just sprang up out of dirt with no purpose or intelligent thought behind it, totally random and all the perfect conditions just happened to come together by...chance? accident? The sheer astronomical odds are staggering.

ToE does not address origins.

To: tpanther

ToE doesn’t submit valid “empirical evidence” that makes sense to me when it comes to origins. Not even close. That life just sprang up out of dirt with no purpose or intelligent thought behind it, totally random and all the perfect conditions just happened to come together by...chance? accident? The sheer astronomical odds are staggering.
ToE does not address origins.

1,445 posted on Fri 19 Sep 2008 08:07:06 PM PDT by ColdWater

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1424 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Oh?

According to evolution.berkeley.edu:

Table of Contents

next >>

From soup to cells — the origin of life


A microbe-like cellular filament found in 3.465 billion year old rock

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Many lines of evidence help illuminate the origin of life: ancient fossils, radiometric dating, the phylogenetics and chemistry of modern organisms, and even experiments. However, since new evidence is constantly being discovered, hypotheses about how life originated may change or be modified. It's important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory.

Here, you can learn about important hypotheses regarding when, where and how life originated and find out how scientists study an event that occurred so long ago.

ToE does not address origins.

Rather, scientists won't let the ToE address origins because spontaneous generation has been demonstrated to be impossible. So if it did, then scientists would be forced into a position of claiming that the process that caused life to arise violates known science. They'd be forced to choose between saying that either life arose spontaneously or that spontaneous generation is right. It's a conflict without resolution so they just ignore it.

If science is right that everything started out in some chemical soup, there has to be a transition from non-living matter to living matter that is part of the continuum from the simplest chemical substances to life as we know it today.

To lop out the part in the middle where the transition exists, and goes against known science, is not a very objective way to approach a problem in science. Ignoring it because it's too hard to explain is the lazy way out.

Scientists would gain more credibility if they admitted that they didn't know how to explain the apparent discrepancy than to brush it off and ignoring it.

ToE does not address origins.

So what’s your hangup again when ID DOES?