Posted on 10/10/2009 9:32:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
ding......ding
Do you think it reasonable to teach theistic evolution in the schoolroom as a hypothesis for origin of first DNA/life?
Theistic evolution is not a provable hypothesis. It's a belief. It can certainly be an element of philosophy courses, it also deserves a mention in the context of a science course, on the occasion of discussing the very origins of life. But I wouldn't require the students to accept it as a proven fact.
“Theistic evolution is not a provable hypothesis. It’s a belief. It can certainly be an element of philosophy courses, it also deserves a mention in the context of a science course, on the occasion of discussing the very origins of life. But I wouldn’t require the students to accept it as a proven fact.”
I do not disagree with any of that. Of course, the ID proponents could claim the same thing.
Go easy on metmom. She said she never believed the moon revolved around the earth then tried over and over along with a couple of her geocentric buddies pretenting to be Eienstien’s to convince me that the moon and son revolved around the earth!
When did Pharaoh Narmer rule Egypt?
Ahhhh, no proof. Just as I thought.
Use your common sense pal. Obviously the sun to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night...come on...your almost there....how about the moon.
Proof of what? No one can answer a nonsense question. You're asking nonsense questions.
So, again: you're asking for "inbetween," "in the process of evolution" species. What would one of those look like? How would we know it when we found it?
I still don't understand how the existence of information is supposed to have disproven evolution. Evolution describes a process of modifying the arrangement of the information in response to environmental conditions.
I don't think the presence of information necessarily disproves evolution. The point, which I believe is significant, is that the only source of information, at least the kind of complex and specific information in DNA, has been observed to originate only by an intelligent agent. This cause is routinely observed and accepted, except for DNA.
The point is not to take abiogenesis off the table — let's keep working at it. But why, if there is a cause that explains the observables, that we observe everyday, is it not allowed on the table?
On another point, my understanding is that the current theory of evolution is not just about the rearrangement of information, but rather the increase of information as organisms build ever more complex biological systems. This is the difficulty. But even if possible, it does not explain the origin of the first information in DNA.
You've submitted that intelligence was the cause. You've observed people creating information. Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really "bringing to the table" exactly what you have observed?
I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. "Cause" implies that it is a necessary consequence.
That’s absolutely hilarious!
“Go easy on metmom”????
Metmom excoriated those that have smeared her, posting scientitifc observations of the moon’s rotation and in typical liberal fashion...they’ve scurried away.
Until now...crickets.
I’m not surprised however you think enough time has elapsed to cover the painful excoriations.
It hasn’t.
LOL!
I meant to submit that intelligence is a possible cause, perhaps the best available explanation, not necessarily the only cause, although it is the only cause we presently know and have observed. How can one eliminate possibilities that haven't been defined or discovered yet?
“Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really “bringing to the table” exactly what you have observed? “
No I have never observed anything other than a human creating information. But a human creates information, not because it is human, but because it has sufficient intelligence. So yes, I think I would be bringing to the table something that has been observed - information created by intelligence — doesn't have to be human.
“I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. “Cause” implies that it is a necessary consequence. “
OK, intelligence does not have to create information. But it has created and continues to create information and hence is a potential source whenever and wherever information is found, even the only known source at this time. That is why I think it belongs on the table.
Simple really...evolution is built upon it. Purposeless, randon, unintelligent, undesigned...evos have to keep it off the table. For obvious reasons. They rely on it, just like they do the courts and every other tactic they use.
ANYthing but the actual science to perpetuate the sham.
I never tried to convince anyone that the moon and the son [sic] revolved around the earth.
Care to site that lie?
Speaking of Einstein, *Eienstien*, is there something about the term *geocentric* and the phrase *earth revolving around the sun* that you really don't get?
Just what was your state of mind when you posted that incoherent drivel, anyway?
Simple, the information has to have come from somewhere.
Non-sequitur.
Non-sequitur.
...does that include your post?
Peddle it somewhere else.
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.