[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
...but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.

Hrm. Science is based on placing impartiality over belief. Religion is based on placing belief over impartiality.

But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.

I don't think leaving a Creator out is necessarily incomplete. AFAIK there's no direct evidence that supports the idea of "Intelligence Design". I think to make everyone as happy as possible while still teaching NS it must be included, but I don't think in a scientific textbook it should be necessary to spell it out.

Part of the problem I've seen is that this being a touchy subject, there are some teachers who flat-out refuse to believe that it's true, and thus have serious problems with teaching it in-class. I figure putting it in-context as "This is what the scientific community thinks, this is the evidence" (Which should be the curriculum anyways) "but there are other opinions that are not covered in this class eg intelligent design."

Of course my HS bio teacher was especially creative, and pointed out to the class that if they didn't believe in it, they could use what they'd learned in the class in debates to about ID vs NS.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.

In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria

Can we prove any of it? Yes, it is quite possible. Your refusal to not believe we all started out as bacteria? That's totally cool. Nobody here is trying to force anything on you. But the fact is, the evidence points to the fact that we did indeed start out as a Bacteria-like organism, and if you don't want to accept that, Stealth's camp is right over there...

Also, has anyone realised the sheer irony of the name 'Intelligent Design'...?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.

In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.
 

We can prove the mechanisms (and have).  Your (apparent) definition of proof would require time travel and observation of every animal that has ever lived; so it's really a definition designed to make proof seem impossible.

You also make the assumption 'we'll never know', which I've noticed is a cornerstone of ID type ideas and the complete antithesis of science.    Although we have evidence of both micro and macroevolution anyways, like equine fossils (equine evolution has a very good fossil record), and the observation of things like bacterial adaptation against penecillin, or insects against pesticide.

On the subject of macroevolution, we have strong evidence for common origin; for example, out of the 320 naturally occuring amino acids, all known life uses the same set of 22  to build proteins.  There is also the sharing of 'ubquitous' genes, which exist across all known life and appear to fulfill a common purpose (i.e. would come from a base source).  The same 4 nucleic acids (guanine, thymine, adenine, cytocine) form all known DNA/RNA.  

So we have evidence of macroevolution, and demonstrated microevolution on the lab (which in itself demonstrates the principles of macroevolution).  We have a weight of evidence supporting a common ancestor, and a nested evolutionary hierarchy, including fossil evidence of transitionary forms (including of the homo genus, even if the 'missing link' is still to be found).

And this is in spite of the inherently incomplete nature of fossil evidence.

Technically, we started out as a series of chemicals that formed (evolved) into polymers, amino acids and soforth, and then bacteria.

To rephrase karas argument;
We find a tree lying in the woods.  We know that all trees can fall down, and that all grow vertically (so their leaves can reach the sun for photsynthesis).  We also know the roots should be in the ground to draw up water.  Additionally, we can see the trunk, etc, is identical to surrounding trees (which, of course, are known to only grow vertically).  The tree may also appear dead or decaying.

But in your mind, you can't decide whether it fell down or started like that?

[Bobboau]

religon relies on faith, science relies on the lack there of, the only reason people believe anything in science is because of evedence, the fossils, genetic links, stuff like that, it all makes sence, there is no evedence for a deity so it takes faith to believe in one. in science you have a theory and it makes predictions and if it fails to make (corect) predictions it is droped, in religion you have a beleife and it is right, if you find somehting that says it's wrong, it is you who are mistaken, and you need to try and figure out how to work this something into the truth of your faith.

[Grey Wolf]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/science/sciencespecial2/06canyon.html

This annoys me. People still think the world is only 5000 years old.

[karajorma]

On the other hand

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/

Schoenborn said: "Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history. I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition - that the limits of a scientific theory are respected."

He explained that in his view, those limits would be overstepped if scientists claimed that evolution proves that there could be no creator. Since science has never made any such claim on evolution's behalf*, it looks like it's still OK by the Vatican.

Looks like the roman catholics on this thread can quit arguing. The vatican has stated yet again that it is against ID even if it does (obviously) believe in God.

The really funny thing is that it completely f**ks over Stealth's argument because you've got one billion people who now have to look at the bible and interpret that it means evolution is correct

[aldo_14]

Albeit worth noting that the Vatican doesn't include abiogenesis in that.  

I think the church knows that science cannot prove or disprove God, simply because of the supernatural nature of the God concept.  I don't think evolution is aetheistic anyways, so it's not really a 'threat' to the religion; it's being presented as such (by creationists) in order to provide a pretext for introducing religious doctrine into the school system.

So I'd imagine, what they see is the proponents of ID making a tit of themselves effectively trying to hold back scientific progress and making christianity (As the main religion behind ID, in terms of the US 'controversy') look antiquated and out of touch with reality.  And hence losing potential worshippers.

[karajorma]

Pretty much.

 As for abiogenesis, this debate was about ID vs Evolution. I want to see evolution taught in class as the only currently recognised scientific theory because quite simply that's what it is. There are no competing theories so it should be taught on its own.

With abiogenesis we are much more in the dark scientifically about that and I dont think that abiogenesis should be taught in schools beyond a cursory glance at the best supported theories. Due to the rather heavy nature of the biochemistry involved it's a subject that's pretty much beyond school children anyway so I'd rather see the time spent on making sure kids understand evolution instead.

I'm not at all upset that the Vatican isn't endorsing abiogenesis as unlike evolution there is very little evidence to support any of the theories. Even the more outlandish ones (life came here on a comet etc) have very little ground to make up to catch the more popular theories. Once there is more proof I'd expect them to change that point of view but for now I'd settle for getting all the catholics in the world to swap sides on this debate

[Kazan]

/me sneaks into this thread to nail the typical easy targets

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Personally, you can believe in either form... Darwinism or Intelligent Design (Made it sound cooler than Creationism... kinda like the new tone to it ), but to me I'd rather believe in one because it gives me more to look forward to...

Your emotional feelings about an idea do not have anything to say about whether it's valid or not.  Argument from Emotion is a fallacy, and you know it.  

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.

What you think, and what fact is, are to different things.

You need faith to have ID, there is more than plenty of independantly verifiable empirical evidence to support Darwinistic evolution.  We have observed it to happen.

You are making an argument from ignorance: you have never informed yourself as to what your opposition actually things, what evidence they actually have, etc so that you can attempt to make the claim that they're equal from ignorance of any difference.


You know better Tin Can.  Why don't you just finally join the adult world and think for yourself and actually look at what the evidence is?  Are you afraid that the evidence will strip you of your emotional comfort blanket? Come on! Grow a backbone.

[Kazan]

Karajorma: there is a LOT more evidence in support of abiogenesis than you think

(make sure you read the entire article)
goddammit.. someone defaced the wikipedia article by removing a lot of relevant and important information.
what an *******.

Basically: we've recreated abiogenesis in the lab inside containers that were made up of the same chemicals that comprised the atmosphere of early earth.  For a while this expiriment had been discredited by some data that was collected about atmospheric conditions and some assumptions about how certain gases would behave.  These discrediting factors were found to be incorrect and the validity of the lab work was found to be strong.

[Wanderer]

Actually i was today listening to the first lecture of a paneuropean Network Course in Astrobiology and atleast by the ESA scientiest told us quite directly that we can not be certain what kind of an atmosphere we had on this globe when the organic molecules and the RNA-life were developing. Early life didn't leave any fossil traces to be tracked (i mean the pre-cellular life).

And he offered two other possibilities how to produce organic molecules from inorganic matter, the black smokers (deep sea) and ofcourse the meteorites (bringing either organic matter (for abiogenesis) or RNA/cellular life (panspermia)). That is not to say that these molecules couldn't have been formed in 'primitive' atmosphere by large electric charges (like lightning) or that all three methods could have co-operated.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
Karajorma: there is a LOT more evidence in support of abiogenesis than you think

You're making an incorrect assumption there. I'm well aware of how much evidence there is in favour of abiogenesis but the question is how much evidence is there to support one theory over another?

The reducing atmosphere experiements support Cairn-Smith's inorganic clays theory almost as much as the primordial soup theory for instance since all they prove is the existance of amino acids and other basic building blocks. They don't provide us with evidence of the first appearance of replicator (and neither would I expect them to).

EDIT : Wanderer's basically stated what I was on about too. Anyway we'd better stop talking before the creationists start thinking that just cause we're discussing how abiogenesis occured it means that we're discussing if abiogenesis occured.

We've spent over one hundred years with the same misconception over evolution after all

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan

Basically: we've recreated abiogenesis in the lab

Lets be fair - we've creaed Amino Acids. AFAIK, we haven't got them to link up into proteins yet.

On another note

From that article
"You see any cracks in that?" he asked. "Instead of bending like that, it should have cracked." The material "had to be soft" to bend, Mr. Vail said, imagining its formation in the flood. When somebody suggested that pressure over time could create plasticity in the rocks, Mr. Vail said, "That's just a theory."

"It's all theory, right?" asked Jack Aiken, 63, an Assemblies of God minister in Alaska who has a master's degree in geology. "Except what's in the Good Book."

[/b]

No way that guy has a masters in Geology - it'd be utterly impossible to get past 1st, maybe 2nd year without accepting an old earth. It's just too fundamental to the science.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14


You've already illustrated my point; it's impossible to clearly demarcate which parts of the bible are parable/mythologically derived and which are (or, rather, could be) literal descriptions.  

...(removed the 50 paragraphs of stuff).....
 

No, we haven't "illustrated your point", we've proved how thick you can be.

You say a scripture talking about the "floodgates of the heavens" being opened IMPLIES a "earth in a dome", or whatever you were going on about.

c'mon man.  you're taking this "the Bible is open to massive interpretation" to a level that's just idiotic.  to an extent it can be interpreted.  but if the Bible says ABC, it means ABC... so you can stop trying to make your "Bible is open to interpretation" points.

the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE.  whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Black Wolf

No way that guy has a masters in Geology - it'd be utterly impossible to get past 1st, maybe 2nd year without accepting an old earth. It's just too fundamental to the science.

It was probably a Christian college if so.  I don't qualifications mean much unless the source is given; we have way too many dodgy degree mills as is (Derek Smart Phd anyone?).

Originally posted by Stealth


No, we haven't "illustrated your point", we've proved how thick you can be.

You say a scripture talking about the "floodgates of the heavens" being opened IMPLIES that the earth is in a dome-shaped sky, or whatever you were going on about.

c'mon man.  you're taking this "the Bible is open to massive interpretation" to a level that's just idiotic.  to an extent it can be interpreted.  but if the Bible says ABC, it means ABC... so you can stop trying to make your "Bible is open to interpretation" points.

the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE.  whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

The bible says heaven has windows in that particular passage.  Windows.  Is that to be taken as literal?  The bible explicitly says first there was a vast water, then land, then the sun (and soforth), with humanity coming before the animals.  Is that literal?  The bible describes the firmament, which is translated from a hebrew meaning a sheet of beaten metal; i.e. the concept of a solid dome forming heaven.  Is that literal?

The bible does not say the earth is round.  It says hhug, which can make a 2 dimensional circle as well as sphere; surrounding mythologies would strongly indicate a 2 dimensional view of the world, based upon shared elements.

The predictions you speak of are your interpretation, based upon your foreknowledge.  You are picking passages that you can twist the meaning of to suit your means, despite the fact they are often contradictory in literal terms (earth upon nothing, earth immobile being an example).  

And even assuming that these most liberal of interpretations is correct - which I doubt - these still aren't things that can be placed down to divine inspiration due to their discovery or observation in other cultures with no connection to the Christian/Jewish culture.

So the bible hasn't predicted anything.  You've taken 2000 years of translations, and adapted the meaning to suit scientific knowledge.  That's not prediction, that's interpretation.

Frankly, if the best you can do is call me thick... well, it shows how laughable the whole 'bible as science' position is. Words like 'thick' and 'idiotic' won't conceal the fundamental wrongness of proposing a religious doctrine as scientific evidence, nor will they conceal the inherent contradictions within.  And they won't convince anyone any quicker, too.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by Stealth
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE.  whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

Give one example which right away isn't ripped apart.

[StratComm]

And I'll add a qualification to that; human history doesn't count as science.  Before we wind up with a dozen examples of "how it's been used to find lost civilizations".

[karajorma]

I think the article I posted is the best example of interpretation. The Vatican has stated that evolution is correct so they are interpreting that the bible supports evolution while stealth is claim that it opposes it.

Those are completely opposite points of view yet they both come from interpretations of the same book.

[aldo_14]

You'd think the Vatican might know about that sort of thing, too.  Of course, I think the real pretext to this is that stealth wants the bible regarded as scientific fact, theory and proof all-in-one.

[TrashMan]

@karajorma

And who do you think is right - a horde of educated men who devote their whole life to the interpretation of said text or a couple of people who read the book at home and start drawing conclusions?