Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Norsefire, Aug 20, 2008.
you work with a version of evolution that doesn't have abiogenesis playing a fundamental role?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Norsefire prefers to remain ignorant and indulge in idle speculation reather than become informed. In an earlier post in this thread I advised him to read up on evolutionary theory and compare what he learned with what Crteationism is saying. Now you are suggesting the same thing but I doubt he will bother.
On another thread he wanted QM explained in terms he could understand. I told him that was not possible on a site such as this, but suggested an accesible book for the intelligent layman which, with a little effort, would give him an insight into QM. As I got no feedback, I assume he couldn't be bothered.
Norefire is one of a few people who come on here with half-understood ideas and expect that they will be spoonfed. It seems to me that such people are not sufficiently interested in the topics they want addressed to take the trouble to do a bit of background reading.
In the present instance the he is using arguments which give the impression they have been lifted from an ID site. Without some background knowledge of evolutionary theory he lacks the knowledge to counter such specious arguments. In fact, he is the kind of enquirer such sites welcome with open arms.
So I conclude that he wishes to continue arguing from a position of ignorance or he is deliberately introducing the usual well worn Creationists arguments in the hope that he may sway the judgement of people as ignorant and lazy as he is. Either way, its a waste of time responding to his posts.
Evolution does not require abiogenesis, it merely requires *life*
If *life* is provided by abiogenesis or aliens or your gods, it matters not.
Actually, I'm not sure evolution as a theory is attempting to prove where life began. It's merely trying to show a pattern life has gone by. Where life began would have to be an entirely NEW (but incorporated) theory.
You're right, it doesn't.
Abiogenesis is one of those theories.
So you admit that ID hasn't any evidence for it. Do you really think we should teach something that hasn't any supporting evidence because you feel a certain way?
I feel that students should examine photographs of my erect penis, so they have an idea of what a man looks like. They then have to write a 3 page essay (double spaced) about how pretty and masculine it is. I don't feel that that's absurd. I feel that that would be awesome.
So are you also saying we should teach geocentrism and heliocentrism as theories, side-by-side? What about spontaneous generation? That's also a theory, like the germ theory of disease. If you were at all familiar with how scientific theories worked, you would realize that there is only a lot of evidence pointing towards heliocentrism- there isn't any definitive proof that we actually circle the sun. In fact, the truth could be obscured by a Decartesian demon fooling our senses. We could all be stuck in the Matrix. Etc, etc.
Occam's Razor. Which sounds more reasonable: accepting a theory because there's a mountain of evidence for it, or rejecting it in favor of a hypothetical in which there is no supporting evidence?
No. As in all things scientific, one goes with the preponderance of evidence, the sound argument, and the tested predictions.
As opposed to the lack of evidence, the nonsensical argument, and the failure to generate predictions let alone test them.
Darwinian evolution has been proposed as an explanation for abiogenesis, as well the origin of the species. The evidence there is nowhere near as strong, but it has several arguments in its favor, among them that it is capable - Darwinian evolution is capable of producing arbitrary complexity from such initial conditions as are postulated for early Earth.
It has also been proposed as an explanation for the structure of physical law and the geometry of the universe, btw, and usefully employed in several other fields unrelated to biological species.
So not teaching it would amount to skipping one of the two or three fundamental theories of Western science, one with extraordinary explanatory power and scope of applicability.
Again, if such is the case, I highly doubt it'd have been so obvious. "Wild speculation"? It's a perfectly rational conclusion. How else do you think every civilization in the world came up with it, even those that didn't communicate?
No, it's far stronger. And again, what is it with you atheists that makes you compare ID to ridiculous things? Is the string theory as pointless as balls of cheese?
Finally someone who can understand the difference between religion and concept. ATHEISTS TAKE NOTE!
They change. But the change from the supposed beginning of man to what we are today is a massive one.
I think we should teach it as an idea, not as a fact or even a theory. Just as an idea. It is a rational enough idea.
I never once agreed with creationism. I find creationism to be an interesting myth. I don't believe it, though.
Speculation is important, because everything starts out with ideas. It isn't a ridiculous supposition that we were created, now the only problem is finding evidence.
What position of ignorance am I at? I do believe in evolution.
Again, Creationism is not ID; ID simply suggests the concept that we were created. Nothing unreasonable about that. Creationism specifically states the exact everything about ID, which is why it's unreasonable. ID isn't, it's broader and understandable.
I think it should be taught as an idea, and evolution shouldn't be taught as fact. As a theory, yes, and a theory with alot of evidence, sure. But not fact. Teach both if you want to give people every side of the argument and let them choose for themselves.
The same way every civilization concluded that the sun circles us? That people can cast spells? That the liver is the seat of reason? Come on, try harder.
There is no evidence for our "creation." There is ample evidence for our evolution. Perhaps you're confusing abiogenesis and evolution? If life exists as it exists now, evolution is an inevitability.
At the time, those were rational. The concept of a creator, however, is rational entirely, regardless of time, because the core supposition makes sense all round. As in, no further understanding of physics or anything will detract or add to the supposition of creation.
There's no evidence for dark matter or string theory. No actual concrete evidence, there's only small observations and suppositions.
The main focus is that creation is a very real possibility as to where we come from, so while it certainly shouldn't be taught as fact, of course, the idea should still be taught.
Are you absolutely 100% confident that evolution is correct, and willing to defend that belief with conviction to the death?
Ok? How does that make ID worthy of being taught in a scientific setting? Save it for mythology or something.
Small observations are a hell of a lot more than what the ID camp has. But I'm a physics layman- I can't discuss this subject with much authority. I do know, though, that this theoretical stuff tends to stay very theoretical until they can find practical application. It's "true" so long as it produces workable hypothesis and experiments. I've heard M-theory criticized for being untestable.[/quote]
How can you say this without evidence? It's not a "very real possibility" in the sense that it's at all remotely possible, since there isn't any evidence for it, and the hypothesis doesn't do anything for any sort of scientific endeavor. Should we start investigating species distribution based on how boastful Kord was thrown from his chariot by wrathful Hextor, leading to the scattering of the animals and the Age of Beasts?
Only a fool is 100% confident of anything.
As a concept. It isn't mythology, however, and again, this is narrowmindedness on your part not to understand the underlying concept that ID presents.
ID is concept; however, you could also say it's theoretical. So why can string theory be taught and not ID? String theory is hardly fact at all.
You're presenting the traditional narrowminded atheist argument. Nobody can prove the nature or ability or anything of the sort of higher life. However, higher life is not an irrational concept; hell, we're higher life compared to other life on this planet. Why is it so irrational to suppose that there is life higher than us? That's what makes it rational concept.
You mean like how you don't take the threat of Ragnorak seriously?
Because string theory is based on what's known. ID is based on the unknown. String theory also, presumably, makes predictions.
Sorry. Alright, so when Arc-913X crashed over landmass Beta2, what does that tell us about the circumpolar distribution of Lemus?
Nothing at all.
Who would you rather have designing weapons for your arsenal: the clergy or the scientist? The scientist, because he works with knowns- he gets results. His world view has better predicative power. Ideas should be accepted and rejected based on utility, not fluffiness. In science. You can dick grab about whatever you like in philosophy class- none of you guys ever did anything, anyway.
That's just it! Finally some progress.
ID is based on one known premise: intelligence can create complexity. That's where ID comes in, in regards to our origins.
Again, huh, what?
Then there's no reason in figuring out how the universe began.
Science is about finding answers.
Ragnorak. Probably the most badass end of the world myth ever. Way better than global warming.
That's so weak sauce. Very weak. One premises. Without any other evidence.
That's like finding hydrocarbons on Titan and deciding that there must have been dinosaurs there.
You know, the flying saucer, when it crashed.
Your hypothesis that life on earth is due to creation, as opposed to being explicable with evolutionary theory, doesn't do anything more for us than that. Evolution, on the other hand, helps explain the distribution of lemmings about the arctic.
So ID shouldn't be taught in science class.
And what has that got to do anything?
No, you've made a specification. It's more like finding hydrocarbons on Titan and deciding it's possible life could have/ is there.
The distinctions are that it's broader, and you said deciding "that there MUST"; that's not what ID is about. It's about making suggestions. We know intelligence can create complexity, so that's where the suggestion about our origins comes from. It's perfectly reasonable. To go further than concept, of course, requires evidence, but the concept is still reasonable enough.
Science is about information, not usefulness of information.
Neither should dark matter, the big bang, or string theory. Now I'm not stupid, I know the big bang has evidence; but it isn't provable or testable.
ID should be taught, as a scientific concept.
That it should be taught in science class. We know everything that has a beginning must have an end.
It's also perfectly reasonable that dinosaurs died on Titan and made a bunch of oil, then.
We know that dinosaurs -> oil, so oil must imply dinosaurs, right?
Or, as you're doing it, intelligence -> complexity, so complexity -> intelligence.
Except, as you may one day come to learn, neither one of those are valid logical arguments. It is never always the case that
If A then B
Therefore, B then A.
A couple mental exercises will quickly show this to be an invalid argument.
So, as you have structured it, no, ID is not at all reasonable.
Science is about the collection of information.
What part of ID is scientific, again?
Does it produce testable hypotheses?
Is there evidence?
Separate names with a comma.