[_ Old Earth _] science against evolution

[jasoncran]

this is a site i came across, and please visit the about as they will tell who and what they believe. i am not sure if they are creationists. i dont think they are.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i6f.htm

 

[jwu]

this is a site i came across, and please visit the about as they will tell who and what they believe. i am not sure if they are creationists. i dont think they are.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i6f.htm

Those "theses" indicate that their author is utterly ignorant about science.

 

[jasoncran]

how so? they arent creationists , that is defined who and what they are on the home page.

so we should just take what the toe is unfalseifable then?

if its done by natural process ie( life came to be) then sooner or later it should be able to be redone in a lab.

that to me is reasonable.

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. The author is obviously completely ignorant of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular.

Pick any of the assertions, put it up for discussion, and we'll go over it, if you like.

 

[Crying Rock]

Yep. The author is obviously completely ignorant of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular.

Pick any of the assertions, put it up for discussion, and we'll go over it, if you like.

The first 15 theses seem pretty uncontroversial:

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method†for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis†is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.

 

[jwu]

how so? they arent creationists , that is defined who and what they are on the home page.

Do they say anywhere, "we are not creationists"?

so we should just take what the toe is unfalseifable then?

The ToE is very much falsifiable, but in order to do so one needs to address the actual ToE, not some bizarre straw man. E.g. a genuine find of precambrian bunnies would be a serious problem for the ToE. Easy, isn't it?

if its done by natural process ie( life came to be) then sooner or later it should be able to be redone in a lab.

The ToE does not deal with how life came to be, it just explains how it has changed in the past.
Besides, it looks like exactly that is going on right now, there is a thread about it here after all.

 

[jasoncran]

then what is the confusion over the the primordial ooze that darwin proposed?
he claimed that life came from that, yet no one seems to address that as being not part of the toe.

 

[jwu]

then what is the confusion over the the primordial ooze that darwin proposed?
he claimed that life came from that, yet no one seems to address that as being not part of the toe.

Source?

I don't think Darwin proposed any such thing, but even if he did, that wouldn't make it part of the ToE. The ToE is not defined as "anything Darwin said".

 

[jasoncran]

in the book the origin of the species. he claimed that all life came from the primordial ooze.

so what darwin says isnt relevant now? hmm nice shift there. i know that much of what he said has been modified. but when will this stop.

 

[Crying Rock]

in the book the origin of the species. he claimed that all life came from the primordial ooze.

Jason, do you know what page this claim is made on? I note that many proponents of ToE claim that evolution doesn't deal with origins. To me this is a cop out. To ToE proponents every species on earth can be attributed to an ancient, single living organism, or at least a very small population. But explaining or asking how that first living organism(s) came to be seems to be out of bounds for ToE.

 

[jasoncran]

in the book the origin of the species. he claimed that all life came from the primordial ooze.

Jason, do you know what page this claim is made on? I note that many proponents of ToE claim that evolution doesn't deal with origins. To me this is a cop out. To ToE proponents every species on earth can be attributed to an ancient, single living organism, or at least a very small population. But explaining or asking how that first living organism(s) came to be seems to be out of bounds for ToE.

i meant to correct myself. but got involved in antother thread

though the lack of an effictive means of producing a single cell from the ooze would cause some serious problems as that would kill the theory of abiogenesis, and if that fails evolution would have to be looked at from a slighty different angle

 

[Crying Rock]

The ToE is very much falsifiable, but in order to do so one needs to address the actual ToE, not some bizarre straw man. E.g. a genuine find of precambrian bunnies would be a serious problem for the ToE. Easy, isn't it?

Where were Precambrian deposits formed? Can you imagine any bunnies running around in that environment? How old are the oldest remaining surface deposits on earth (alluvial, fluvial, aeolian, etc...)?

 

[Crying Rock]

JC:

i meant to correct myself. but got involved in antother thread

I don't know if any correction is necessary, though it might be.

Here's what I came up with on a Google search:

"warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesi ... and_Darwin

 

[jasoncran]

while that might not be in the book of the origins. it revelant since the other person went to make that the the theory of abiogenesis.

if life cant come from non life and experiment after experiment proves this, what then?

 

[jwu]

Where were Precambrian deposits formed?

Roughly all over the earth, from the polar regions to the equator.

Can you imagine any bunnies running around in that environment?

Yes, they could thrive in that environment.

How old are the oldest remaining surface deposits on earth (alluvial, fluvial, aeolian, etc...)?

That'd be sedimentary rocks from greenland, measured at 3.9 billion years.

while that might not be in the book of the origins. it revelant since the other person went to make that the the theory of abiogenesis.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a set of hypotheses.

if life cant come from non life and experiment after experiment proves this, what then?

No experiment has proven anything of that sort, but that field is currently being researched on. For all intents and purposes God could have created the first living cell. That wouldn't change much beyond that, for the evidence that life was radically different in the past aeons remains.

 

[jasoncran]

uh, that aint science

that's religion.

sorry couldnt resist.

 

[jwu]

uh, that aint science

that's religion.

sorry couldnt resist.

Excuse me?

 

[jasoncran]

you refered to my statement on what if the theory of abiogenesis is shot then you said your comment what if god did it.

Where were Precambrian deposits formed?

Roughly all over the earth, from the polar regions to the equator.

Can you imagine any bunnies running around in that environment?

Yes, they could thrive in that environment.

[quote:5q6lu9ay]How old are the oldest remaining surface deposits on earth (alluvial, fluvial, aeolian, etc...)?

That'd be sedimentary rocks from greenland, measured at 3.9 billion years.

while that might not be in the book of the origins. it revelant since the other person went to make that the the theory of abiogenesis.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a set of hypotheses.

if life cant come from non life and experiment after experiment proves this, what then?

No experiment has proven anything of that sort, but that field is currently being researched on. For all intents and purposes God could have created the first living cell. That wouldn't change much beyond that, for the evidence that life was radically different in the past aeons remains.[/quote:5q6lu9ay]

 

[jwu]

you refered to my statement on what if the theory of abiogenesis is shot then you said your comment what if god did it.

Yes, that would be a case of a miracle. I have no issue with that.

 

[jasoncran]

you refered to my statement on what if the theory of abiogenesis is shot then you said your comment what if god did it.

Yes, that would be a case of a miracle. I have no issue with that.

you are an enigma then, you pick to which miracle you want to accept.

can god use evolution , most certainly. can he make something from nothing, yes, did he use it
imho based on the theology i have been seeing and piecing it all together, i seriously doubt it.

that makes no sense to you, but we have already been debating that.

if genesis is a literary device on the nature of creation(the parts that mention it) what is the meaning of it, and i know that its not a scientific explanation, to the tee.