Hi - I am new here and wondered where to post this question

Part One: Has science managed to "prove evolution" in an absolute sense? To me, evolution far and away does not preclude the fact that creation took place. In fact I would think it merely serves to support the notion to a very explainable degree. All life within the habitat we occupy has the tendency to adapt and overcome. To specialize according to unique internal and external finite reactive process. Since we know that energy can neither create nor destroy itself without said finite "reality" being controlled, what created that "reality" and influenced control over it initially?

Part Two: The following is a quote from a fictitious context (a movie). Is this quote accurate despite it's embedded ideal at the end? That's to say that I am not concerned about whether one is persuaded to make a judgment concerning creation or not, I just want to know if the "meat" of the quote is absolute or not.

"In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God."

from the movie: "The Ninth Configuration"


Thanks!
e

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution is a fact.

Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis, they are different concepts.

I don't know what this means.

You will first have to explain what the hell "protein molecules of the ninth configuration" are.
Look here for an explanation of abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosophy:religion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yea I wasnt sure about that one either.

I do know this, amino acids are the building blocks of organic material. These have been found in space.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060808_st_life_molecules.html

 

Yes, amino acids form readily under the right circumstances.
The questions that are unanswered is how they formed primitive RNA molecules. And how cells came to be.
There are some pretty convincing hypotheses though.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

fact
–noun
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Something to read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

PSEUDOSCIENCE for anything discussing ideas that are not scientifically proven or based.
Perhaps even BIOLOGY in the case of evolution.

 

I am intelligent enough to question the issue. It's my understanding that the concept of no creator because of evolution is flawed. I do not understand the "the ninth configuration" thing either. That's why I asked whether or not it was factual.

Many scientific minds contend it takes as much faith to accept evolution from nothing as it does to accept creation from nothing.

Is their proof of either?

As far as "evidence" is concerned, the problem is that there is TOO MUCH "evidence" supporting both notions. Disbarring "evidence", what proof is there that evolution is fact? Observation? Isn't observation itself flawed by the concept of perceptive reality?

Again, I am not here to argue. I here to learn. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.

 

Evolution or anything scientific study has ever concluded has never once gone against the notion of god creating the universe. I don't seperate god and science they go together in my opinion, science only proves to me how complex and amazingly accurate and perfect existence/the universe and reality is.


peace.

 

Unguided evolution is a theory.
If anything has been "observed" it's that only bacteria are capable of "positive" mutations.
And I've never read any compelling theories as to how the human mind had become 100 times more advanced than that of any other living thing. What happened? A coincidence, perhaps also, that the opposable thumb and upright mobility came right along with it?
I doubt that.

 

Well, I suggest you investigate then as you obviously aren't going to take it from me.

 

electrafixtion,
There are very few areas of science in which a kind of mathematical or geometric "proof" is possible. This doesn't detract from the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. The so-called evidence of creationism is so far either weak or deeply flawed in a scientific sense. Personal anecdodes are not reliable evidence.

 

"There are very few areas of science in which a kind of mathematical or geometric "proof" is possible."

How can anything be "fact" if such cannot be proved? What keeps it from being mere speculation as is the case with all "scientific reality" until proved otherwise?

"The so-called evidence of creationism is so far either weak or deeply flawed in a scientific sense. Personal anecdodes are not reliable evidence."

I know this is not the case because I myself have read very convincing contentions to the effect that creationism is far more scientifically plausible than origins that constitute speculated infinite conversions of matter and energy. These being by very respected scientists.

If what you express is indeed the "common truth" then surly there must be text book examples a plenty for these proposed flawed arguments. What are some such apparently strong evidences that don't stand up to serious scientific scrutiny?

 

I would suggest searching the forum on this issue. I'm sure there are plenty of threads with bad arguments on both sides.

Basically, though, the conversations end with someone being called crazy or "too uneducated to discuss the issue" (i'll let you guess who that someone is).

 

You are incorrect in your understanding of how science works. There is something between mere speculation and absolute proof. Science does not determine reality. It determines what is the most likely explanation for an observation. A theory that has withstood repeated rigorous testing, makes predictions which are true, and recieves scientific consensus is considered a fact.

Creationists like to write books and pretend their evidence is scientific, but it isn't. You further confuse the evolution/creation question with the big bang, these are separate. Creationism as it applies to the origins of life usually rests it's arguments on things like irreduceable complexity. There are no cases of this actually found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

This website does a great job of covering all the major arguments.

 

I never expressed an understanding via description of "how science works". I don't need to as I am certain. You are right however about there being something between speculation and proof. It's called theory and at this point, a creator inspired and conceived evolution is no less a theory than evolution minus intelligent design. That's the only fact that has been introduced "here" so far.

You are also right that science does not determine reality, but the fact is, science most definitely determines scientific reality. IE. that which is proved factual via scientific process *is* scientific reality. There are countless examples. Evolution minus intelligent design is not one of them.

I also find your summery of "creationists" impulsive and judgmental. Even slightly colored with emotion. I am certain you would find yourself in the company of many scientists that support coinciding creation and evolution. Those far in excess of your own mental and scientific standard, were you to honestly and objectively research the matter yourself.

Incidentally, I support neither notion in full at this time so your assumption as far as my own personal stance is seriously flawed.

It is you who have misunderstood me. Where did I confuse the big bang theory & the theory of evolution?

Please don't read past my words. I am here to ask questions and learn what proof there is that supports the notion that evolution and forces other than independent design are responsible for life as we know it.

 

I guess evolution could be considered a fact... the real debate is macro- vs micro- evolution...

 

Explain the difference ?

 

macro-evolution: all modern animals are evolved from amphibians
micro-evolution: all modern animals are variations of original species created by God

so basically, atheist science vs christian science (aka apologetics)