06 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's simple really. Science has never observed nor is able to duplicate the creation of life.
I am curious as to how you know his theory is lame when you don't even know what theory he has.
[b]Who here expects life just to spring up anywhere? LOL.
Prior to Louis Pasteur, just about everyone.[/b]
Next?
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by whodeyWhy would the fact that we are not able to create life in a test tube mean that life couldn’t have come into existence “by chance” in nature?
It's simple really. Science has never observed nor is able to duplicate the creation of life.
Next?
Do you think we are at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and that whatever we currently can’t do must therefore have a supernatural cause?
Originally posted by Great King RatI would think that science would want to actually observe something before believing it happens.
Why would the fact that we are not able to create life in a test tube mean that life couldn’t have come into existence “by chance” in nature?
Do you think we are at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and that whatever we currently can’t do must therefore have a supernatural cause?
Call me crazy.
Then again, it could have been the Darwin fairy of random chance.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by whodeyFrom Wikipedia:
It's simple really. Science has never observed nor is able to duplicate the creation of life.
Next?
"Leeuwenhoek was a Dutch Reformed Calvinist. He often referred with reverence to the wonders God designed in making creatures great and small. He believed that his amazing discoveries were merely further proof of the great wonder of God's creation. Leeuwenhoek's discovery that smaller organisms procreate similarly to larger organisms challenged the contemporary belief, generally held by the 17th-century scientific community, that such organisms generated spontaneously. The position of the Church on the exact nature of the spontaneous generation of smaller organisms was ambivalent."
Before Leeuwenhoek (often called the first microbiologist, due to his observations gleaned from intricate microscopes of his own design), mainstream science believed that a piece of meat left out in the open air would spontaneously create maggots (larvae of flies), not understanding that these were caused by other flies laying their eggs. So science (of the 17th century) not only observed, but fully believed in the spontaneous creation of life.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by whodeyI thought you didn't have a problem with the theory of evolution.
I would think that science would want to actually observe something before believing it happens.
Call me crazy.
Then again, it could have been the Darwin fairy of random chance.
Have you changed your mind again?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by whodeyPeople on both sides of the argument say this, and IMO it is unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life.
If life came about from non-life by natural variation and selection, then the process can be studied the same way evolution of living matter is studied. There would have been no special moment when the fundamental chemical processes changed. Are you suggesting that there was such a moment? Why?
06 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by catstormDr. Phil is an idiot who must have received his degrees from a Cracker Jack box. He sets Psychology back a generation. His TV show does serve a purpose, however, as it gets people talking to each other, but it has little to do with Psychology.
Pebbles and Bam-Bam are left in the care of Dino, a dinosaur, and Hoppy, a kangaroo. This seems like careless parenting, even by Stone Age standards. What would Dr. Phil say?
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by JS357he is right.
People on both sides of the argument say this, and IMO it is unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.
If life came about from non-life by natural variation and selection, then the process can be studied the same way evolution of living matter is studied. There would have been no special moment when the fundamental chemical processes changed. Are you suggesting that there was such a moment? Why?
evolution has no business describing how life originated. that's chemistry and physics. and how you define life.
evolution describes how life evolved across generations. (simplistic description).
you are forcing the definition by saying that chemical processes are organisms, that they react to their environment and that the most "fit" survives and reproduces into a similar chemical process.
you also forget that under certain conditions and with certain ingredients only one chemical process can occur. under the same conditions, organisms may evolve in many and diverse ways, many of them surviving and reproducing further.
it is an interesting idea from a philosphical point of view but incorrect nonetheless
06 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeywe have observed evolution.
I would think that science would want to actually observe something before believing it happens.
Call me crazy.
Then again, it could have been the Darwin fairy of random chance.
it's called paleontology. and no, you don't have to actually be there to study it.
just as you don't have to "see" the electron with your eyes (it's impossible) to make experiments regarding electrons.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziI understand the distinction but think it is overplayed in the lay world. Carbon makes tetrahedral bonds which works for constructing helixes. That's chemistry. Chemistry is one layer of reductionism below biology, and biochemistry is said to bridge the gap, but it's still chemistry. (Physics underlays both.)
he is right.
evolution has no business describing how life originated. that's chemistry and physics. and how you define life.
evolution describes how life evolved across generations. (simplistic description).
you are forcing the definition by saying that chemical processes are organisms, that they react to their environment and that the most " ...[text shortened]... er.
it is an interesting idea from a philosphical point of view but incorrect nonetheless
So I'm not stretching evolution to explain chemistry, if anything I'm stretching chemistry to explain evolution.
A pre-DNA molecule encounters ammonia in a warm wet environment and with some clay surface handy as a catalyst, adds an amine function that later helps it survive if some acid drops by (I'm making this up. But something analogous to that happened.) There you have variation and selection.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziPaleontology is a study of dead bones. Dead bones have never been seen to evolve because they are dead, dead, dead. 😏
we have observed evolution.
it's called paleontology. and no, you don't have to actually be there to study it.
just as you don't have to "see" the electron with your eyes (it's impossible) to make experiments regarding electrons.