treide: i never said you cant talk about something other than little toy soldiers...i just stated my opinion, and that i thought it was being read into far too much. this is my opinion and thats all it is. if you beleive i am wrong in stating my own opinion then what is the point of these forums anyway. i think your opinions are all well and good and what not, i just dont agree with them, just like you dont agree with me. thats all i am saying.
Did Adam have a member?
- Thread starter Infidel Castro
- Start date
treide: i never said you cant talk about something other than little toy soldiers...i just stated my opinion, and that i thought it was being read into far too much. this is my opinion and thats all it is. if you beleive i am wrong in stating my own opinion then what is the point of these forums anyway. i think your opinions are all well and good and what not, i just dont agree with them, just like you dont agree with me. thats all i am saying.
[/quote]
Mattrock - Evolutionary theory can be falsified, as soon as someone can propose a different mechanism by which organisms change over time. [/quote]
Again...I\'m speaking directly to the issue of evolutionary theory as a basis for the origins of life. If you can falsify evolutionary origins you can falsify Creationism. All you have to do is show that the origin of life happened a different way. But it can\'t be possiblity (as both of those are) it has to be certainty because possibility can\'t falsify another possibility.
Mattrock - Evolutionary theory can be falsified, as soon as someone can propose a different mechanism by which organisms change over time. [/quote]
Again...I\'m speaking directly to the issue of evolutionary theory as a basis for the origins of life. If you can falsify evolutionary origins you can falsify Creationism. All you have to do is show that the origin of life happened a different way. But it can\'t be possiblity (as both of those are) it has to be certainty because possibility can\'t falsify another possibility.
No Such Agency
New member
An interesting point, it reminds me of something a man once said...
...a man named Hitler!
You know... Hitler liked paintings too! OK, seriously, this is a useful analogy, because a work of art\'s meaning and enjoyability are two very separate things, and two very different ways of looking at it. But both have value. Stephen Jay Gould called science and religion \"non-overlapping magisteria\", or in lay terms, they address very different questions and issues, and need not conflict with each other.
Mattrock - Evolutionary theory can be falsified, as soon as someone can propose a different mechanism by which organisms change over time. [/quote]
i can disprove darwins theory very easily.
if one was to, fight long enough, and learn from ones mistakes, they would begin to go under a metamorphosis, once this change occurs it would be quick almost as if a bright flash of light as made this change possible. said creature would then evolve more once fighting longer and more complex battles and yet again in a flash of light BAM another evolution. till finally
the pokemon has evolved to its final form.
oh yeah........gotta catch em\' all.
Mattrock - Evolutionary theory can be falsified, as soon as someone can propose a different mechanism by which organisms change over time. [/quote]
Again...I\'m speaking directly to the issue of evolutionary theory as a basis for the origins of life. If you can falsify evolutionary origins you can falsify Creationism. All you have to do is show that the origin of life happened a different way. But it can\'t be possiblity (as both of those are) it has to be certainty because possibility can\'t falsify another possibility. [/quote]
I grant you that the origin of life debate is a tough one. The various experiments that have been conducted in an attempt to simulate early Earth conditions have been able to produce biochemical compounds that are the building blocks of life as we know it. Amino acids, nucleic acids, etc., once formed in the \"primordial soup\", eventually interact and form the biochemical pathways/interactions we associate with life. I agree that all such experiments are limited in that we don\'t actually know what those exact conditions were, but the explanation seems plausible to me.
Those biochemical compounds would have to have been around a long time before they could have assembled into macromolecules such as DNA and RNA that are essential for our understanding of heredity/evolution, but there is no reason to believe that it could not happen. All of this would be taking place prior to the advent of even single celled organisms.
It has been awhile since I have discussed theories about the origins of molecular biology, so NSA or other basic scientists here may be better able to address your point.
No Such Agency
New member
I think the general point is that science addresses \"what is there, and how it got that way\", while religion addresses \"why\"; the philosophical and ethical aspects of existence. You can pray all day and it won\'t help you discover the structure of a new protein. And you won\'t ever design an experiment that explains why I should love my neighbour.
treide: origin-of-life biochem is pretty esoteric stuff, I\'ll have to do some reading up on the field before I can say anything non-trivial about it.
I agree that evolution and a possibility for the origins of life that must be entertained and studied in greater depth. That said, the thing that irks me about it is that it is given MUCH more weight in this area than it currently deserves (or at least from my relatively limited knowledge on the subject.) It is often treated as THE exclusive plausible theory for the origins of life and I don\'t think it\'s earned that designation.
My contention is that ID is equally worth study and research. There is evidence (parituclarly as concerns mathematical probability) that the \'ooze\' to \'life\' jump is next to impossible. That\'s not to say that it didn\'t happen, but to happen by random chance and then to be followed by the relatively precise series of changes that must necessarily have followed to lead to the order of our current ecological system ...well...the odds against it are simply mind-numbing.
Again, I\'m not saying that evolution should be discounted...indeed, I think it deserves more study. I\'m simply saying that I believe other ideas should be explored as well. The idea of efficient cause was orginally proposed by Artistotle in a completely non-theist context, but it begs a lot of questions.
My contention is that ID is equally worth study and research. There is evidence (parituclarly as concerns mathematical probability) that the \'ooze\' to \'life\' jump is next to impossible. That\'s not to say that it didn\'t happen, but to happen by random chance and then to be followed by the relatively precise series of changes that must necessarily have followed to lead to the order of our current ecological system ...well...the odds against it are simply mind-numbing.
Again, I\'m not saying that evolution should be discounted...indeed, I think it deserves more study. I\'m simply saying that I believe other ideas should be explored as well. The idea of efficient cause was orginally proposed by Artistotle in a completely non-theist context, but it begs a lot of questions.
I agree and disagree. I guess what I\'d like to see is some more cooperative work between the scientific and religious communties to scientifically evaluate and study the claims of religon. There is some serious study in archaeology and and the historical criticism realm but I\'d really like to see some in the biological realm as well. It\'ll probalby never happen though because too many proponents of both sides seem to feel threatened by the other and what they may conclude.
We should get together and form a foundation, NSA....I\'m sure having originated with a thread on CMON on the existence or lack thereof of Adam\'s member, we\'d have no trouble at all with peer credibility lol
edit:
:wow: I just noticed that this very thread has evolved....and that the creator of the thread has dissappeared...I think that may make us all evolutionist and theist
No Such Agency
New member
Hehe, but if it hadn\'t happened just the way it did, we wouldn\'t be here to say \"holy crap, what are the odds?\" would we
The probability of events that have already occurred is 100%.No thanks, that might involve reading huge piles of journal articles. There\'s a reason I didn\'t go for my PhD. See my post in the \"Do you like your job\" thread lol
Anything I would try to say in response to this would not come close to the depth and simplicity of this statement. We are truly waxing philosophical now.
Someone get us some togas and sandals. I\'m headed to the bath house.
All joking aside...I\'ll probably use that in future conversations. Well said.
...or as Hitler might say...
I have heard some interesting discussions about this probability issue. There is evidence in the DNA of so-called \"higher organisms\" that most of our biochemical machinery was indeed arrived at in a rather haphazard fashion, suggesting chaotic, random occurrences leading to the current genomes of us and other critters on the planet.
In other words, we have a lot of junk DNA that resembles our functioning DNA, and that supports random mutations and replication errors that have randomly accumulated over time, some useful, some not.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Other ideas will be considered once evidence starts to accumulate that speak against evolution. Is there another viable theory to explain that we share 20% of our genes with worms.. or our common heritage with the great apes of today?
The mathematical probability you are talking about I think is the \"universe finetuned for life\" one. The question is not the origin of life but rather the circumstances in how life can come to be.
Now the argument is that the laws of physics themselves seem to be tailored for life. Suns almost not being able to make carbon and the very near non-formation of galaxies and such because of the vacuum density being two examples.
The response to that is string theory in which the mathematics predict several consistent laws of physics in which these set we use is only one. The possibility of universes forming all the time with different sets of physical laws is discussed and also different set of laws within the same universe.
If there there is say an equation that can explain it all as some hope, that would as I understand it/see it speak for a ID viewpoint (we have to remind ourselves that physical \"laws\" are only approximations and certain are context based). If there were such things as definite universal laws, that would speak for a designer. While if all theories, even mathematics is relative that would speak for a universe made by random chance.
So I\'m pretty much saying the opposite of what some are saying. If we can explain it all through science that speaks for a creator, if we cannot explain it through science that will speak for random chance. So explaining the entire universe and how we came to be is not devastating to a argument of a creator, it is rather the opposite.
So for me as one believing in a creator I say: Go scientists go!!
Hope that came out understandable.. :redface:
freakinacage
Well-known member
hitler!!! (sorry, had to say it)
to be fair i don\'t think his orginal comment was to be taken seriously. mine certainly wasn\'t. matt certainly doesn\'t seem to be backing down and is certainly arguing well. keep it up boy and gals, i have been impressed by the quality of arguments on both sides!
to be fair i don\'t think his orginal comment was to be taken seriously. mine certainly wasn\'t. matt certainly doesn\'t seem to be backing down and is certainly arguing well. keep it up boy and gals, i have been impressed by the quality of arguments on both sides!
