Evolution Debate ...
- Thread starter Planet_EN
- Start date
Once again...I repeat do you think it is alright to use lies, distortions, undermining of legitmate science to achieve your goals?? And if so...please explain this to me.
peapod said:
No I'm not, and I know fundies do this. The part I don't understand is that people who claim that science is a solution to everything is incorrect also. Science has been wrong many times. And there is no science the "proves" the origins of the universe. They are theories backed up bits and pieces of science. Which part don't you understand there?
I did not say science was the solution. My beef is with fundies who use tatics that I have listed above...talk about evil! and we all know where this kind of thing leads. If they want their beliefs in science they should have to use the same standards and methods that science does.! Thats it! thats my only beef in all of this!
Peapod it is not alright to resort to coercive tactics to get your point across, but this is a reality we have to live with.
I know that I was born as a result of my mom + dad having sex, but i'll bet there are millions of people out there who would argue that it was something else that caused me to be inside my mother for 9months, be it purpose, rebirth of a past life, accident? lol
This will sound bad but as long as people are allowed to think freely then for whatever reason there will always be those who counter every point one makes
I know that I was born as a result of my mom + dad having sex, but i'll bet there are millions of people out there who would argue that it was something else that caused me to be inside my mother for 9months, be it purpose, rebirth of a past life, accident? lol
This will sound bad but as long as people are allowed to think freely then for whatever reason there will always be those who counter every point one makes
Agreed, science isn't the solution to everything, and no scientist worthy of the title would claim it is. But what it does claim is far more likely to be correct than any faith-based claims. If you want to make empirical claims about the nature of reality, science is the only game in town.I think not said:
Also agreed, but it admits it and corrects itself. That's not a criticism of science, it's one of science's greatest strengths. When was the last time any faith-based system did any serious self correction?
Agreed again, but science is far more likely to eventually come up with a useful answer than faith. And if you're up on string theory and quantum gravity, you'll know that the physicists feel they're getting closer all the time.
I think you may be misusing the word theory here. It has two meanings in common use. The weak sense means a belief or speculation, which is the basis on which Creationists and IDers dismiss evolution as "only a theory." In the strong sense, a theory is a coherent body of observations, analyses, deductions, and ideas, that describe and explain a specified range of phenomena. That is the sense in which evolution is a theory.
Dexter Sinister said:
I'm all for science Dex. I'm also for those people who take a leap of faith and bother nobody in the process.
I think not said:
...and which of those groups would you lump the schools that refuse to teach evolution into?
If anything this debate does, is inspire the intensity and emotion that enlivens learning beyond the boring 2+2=1.
Instead of the rote learning of ACCEPTED TRUTH, people are questioning, discussing, possibly even thinking with whatever limited capacities we all have.
If any of the stupidity puts a harder test on those who are intelligent, well, maybe stupidity always triumphs, but it does put all people in contact with how you prove things, puts all people eventually into contact with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Instead of the rote learning of ACCEPTED TRUTH, people are questioning, discussing, possibly even thinking with whatever limited capacities we all have.
If any of the stupidity puts a harder test on those who are intelligent, well, maybe stupidity always triumphs, but it does put all people in contact with how you prove things, puts all people eventually into contact with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
I think not said:
A pity that so many of them think it's their duty to bother others with their faith. I'm not for them, I think they're deluding themselves, but I'm not going to bother them if they don't bother me. Atheists rarely proselytize unless they're pushed, unlike many religious folks who'll try to peddle the stuff at every opportunity.
I didn't mean to suggest you're anti-science, and I hope that's not where your first sentence came from. It's clear from many of your posts here that you're no fool, but the popular view of science is a little, shall we say, limited? I wasn't quite sure where you're coming from. It's not just the authoritative body of facts a lot of people seem to think it is, though it certainly has some of those, it's a method of finding things out, and the only one I know of that works reliably. My view is that when religious belief makes empirical claims about the nature of things that contradict the findings of science (many such can be found in this thread) religion has to yield. Much of the history of the last 400 years or so in the West can be read as Christianity retreating in the face of the scientific revolution.
But there are, as I said earlier, still those fighting a rear guard action...
OK, Zen, here it is:
OK, it took a while but I found it. To have life, you need an element on which complex elements can be based. There are only three, boron, silicon and carbon. Boron is extremely rare and is thus disqualified, and silicon can’t hold together nearly enough amino acids. Thus, according to the scientists, given the constraints of physics and chemistry, we can reasonably assume that life must be carbon-based.
And I didn’t imply spirits or angels; I couldn’t tell from your posts exactly what you meant, and it seemed you might be implying the metaphysical. Thanks for clearing that up. Considering what is known about the physical properties of the universe I don’t think you’ll find a scientist who holds out any hope for such “undiscovered lifeform possibilities”. That sounds more like something from Saturday morning cartoons.
As for the laws of physics, they must be obeyed by anything or anyone that is subject to the universe they belong to. This is simple logic. If there were other universes, as most atheists hope and believe, they would have their own laws of physics. In fact, this is central to the possibility of multiple universe speculation, that each would be different. It isn’t my theory.
OK, it took a while but I found it. To have life, you need an element on which complex elements can be based. There are only three, boron, silicon and carbon. Boron is extremely rare and is thus disqualified, and silicon can’t hold together nearly enough amino acids. Thus, according to the scientists, given the constraints of physics and chemistry, we can reasonably assume that life must be carbon-based.
And I didn’t imply spirits or angels; I couldn’t tell from your posts exactly what you meant, and it seemed you might be implying the metaphysical. Thanks for clearing that up. Considering what is known about the physical properties of the universe I don’t think you’ll find a scientist who holds out any hope for such “undiscovered lifeform possibilities”. That sounds more like something from Saturday morning cartoons.
As for the laws of physics, they must be obeyed by anything or anyone that is subject to the universe they belong to. This is simple logic. If there were other universes, as most atheists hope and believe, they would have their own laws of physics. In fact, this is central to the possibility of multiple universe speculation, that each would be different. It isn’t my theory.
Dex,
As an evolutionist, you’d have to believe that, and also that there would be lots of extraterrestrial life, especially since it showed up so quickly here. Scientists with the same beliefs have tried to estimate the number of planets in the universe with favorable environments for life. By 1966 Carl Sagan and Iosef Shklovskii determined that it takes a certain kind of star with a planet located at just the right distance from that star for minimal life conditions. Based on just these two parameters, they estimated that only .001% of all stars would have a planet capable of supporting life, or about 1 million stars in our galaxy. Subsequently there has been a lot more information and dozens more parameters have been determined to be required, with the consensus now being that there shouldn’t be any life supporting planets in the universe, not even ours. Also there is a relatively narrow range of time in which it has been possible for life to exist, and to continue to exist within the universe.
I read recently of a paradox named after a scientist whose name I’ve forgotten. It goes something like this; If these other civilizations are out there, why haven’t we heard from them? We’ve been broadcasting into outer space for decades now. Other advanced civilizations would have done the same, so why the silence?
Now this may not actually be a paradox. If they are out there, it is, but if they aren’t, it isn’t. Those who believe in natural abiogenesis would, like you, almost have to believe in the same thing occurring throughout the universe. For them it is a paradox. For me it isn’t.
Yes, as soon as it was possible for the earth to support life it was here. But we have more than one example, in a manner or speaking. According to scientists, there were at least 30 life exterminating events in the first 300 million years after life appeared, and it returned each time. That poses a question. If it’s so easy for life to spontaneously erupt, doing so within 10 million years or so each time, why is science having such a hard time postulating how it could happen at all, let alone in a short time?
As an evolutionist, you’d have to believe that, and also that there would be lots of extraterrestrial life, especially since it showed up so quickly here. Scientists with the same beliefs have tried to estimate the number of planets in the universe with favorable environments for life. By 1966 Carl Sagan and Iosef Shklovskii determined that it takes a certain kind of star with a planet located at just the right distance from that star for minimal life conditions. Based on just these two parameters, they estimated that only .001% of all stars would have a planet capable of supporting life, or about 1 million stars in our galaxy. Subsequently there has been a lot more information and dozens more parameters have been determined to be required, with the consensus now being that there shouldn’t be any life supporting planets in the universe, not even ours. Also there is a relatively narrow range of time in which it has been possible for life to exist, and to continue to exist within the universe.
This, I’m sure you realize, is a statement of belief, not logic or science. I could just as well say that it’s obvious we were created or we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
I read recently of a paradox named after a scientist whose name I’ve forgotten. It goes something like this; If these other civilizations are out there, why haven’t we heard from them? We’ve been broadcasting into outer space for decades now. Other advanced civilizations would have done the same, so why the silence?
Now this may not actually be a paradox. If they are out there, it is, but if they aren’t, it isn’t. Those who believe in natural abiogenesis would, like you, almost have to believe in the same thing occurring throughout the universe. For them it is a paradox. For me it isn’t.
Peapod,
[/quote]Well...ehm.. my triades are really directed at the people that try to undermine legitmate science, coz if they can do that...whats next?? no extra butter on popcorn
[/quote]Well...ehm.. my triades are really directed at the people that try to undermine legitmate science, coz if they can do that...whats next?? no extra butter on popcorn
Actually doesn't that suggest the Intelligent Designer got it wrong at least 30 times and had to start over? Trial and error seems a pretty sloppy way to proceed for this postulated god-like creator. Your question's just a false dilemma. "We don't know yet" is a perfectly legitimate answer to the question of how life got started, "God did it" is not. It doesn't explain anything, it's just way of avoiding an explanation.
That is in no sense a statement of belief.
Fact: at one time there were no multicellular life forms on this planet.
Fact: now there are.
Fact: some of them are talking about it.
Where does belief enter into that? And don't be telling me what I have to believe.
Enrico Fermi. You really should try to remember what you read.
Maybe they're not out there (somebody had to be first; maybe it's us). Maybe they don't care to talk to us. Maybe they're too far away to be detected. Maybe they didn't develop technology the way we have. Maybe they're signalling but we don't know how to listen. Google for "Fermi's Paradox" and you'll find dozens of possible answers. Scientific American ran a series of articles a few years ago dealing in detail with that question, and it's pretty clear that even if they're out there in huge numbers and signalling in the 21 cm band as we expect, they won't be easy to detect.
Regardless, what does Fermi's paradox say about intelligent design? Nothing, as far as I can see.
Unlikely, maybe, we still don't know enough to say. As I remember you were saying that you believed that a being outside our universe could create our universe. Why would it not be possible for something outside our universe to enter our universe and create life from something other than carbon ? The possibilty of a carbon based microbe being out there has still not been ruled out. If for example the meteorite that was found in Antartica, which is believed to have come from Mars...They still aren't sure if they have found fossils of microbes in it. That's just our nearest planet. Space is a big place.
Dex
It suggests to me only that it was done 30 or so times.Why is beyond my imagination. Maybe it just liked doing that.
“God did it” is put forward as the most likely explanation, not an avoidance of one. It does not negate “We don’t know yet”, which is an obvious truth.
Just as logical, is the following:
"There obviously must be a creator or we wouldn’t be here talking about it."
Both your statement and mine are circular and do not support either opinion.
And it’s not about what you have to believe. You do believe in natural abiogenesis and evolution, do you not?
Yeah, sometimes I wish I could remember a little better. Glad you’re here to help me.
Given the millions of years when life was possible for creatures such as us on this planet before we got here, and that on another world, the same evolutionary path wouldn’t have been followed, it would be extremely likely that we would have been preceded by intelligent beings. I’ve heard all those possible answers and more, they’re quite popular in science fiction, but not in real science.
Nothing as far as I can see either. We were talking about the possibility of intelligent life on other planets which would almost be a necessity if evolutionary theory was correct, and entirely possible with a designer.
It suggests to me only that it was done 30 or so times.Why is beyond my imagination. Maybe it just liked doing that.
“God did it” is put forward as the most likely explanation, not an avoidance of one. It does not negate “We don’t know yet”, which is an obvious truth.
Just as logical, is the following:
"There obviously must be a creator or we wouldn’t be here talking about it."
Both your statement and mine are circular and do not support either opinion.
And it’s not about what you have to believe. You do believe in natural abiogenesis and evolution, do you not?
Yeah, sometimes I wish I could remember a little better. Glad you’re here to help me.
Given the millions of years when life was possible for creatures such as us on this planet before we got here, and that on another world, the same evolutionary path wouldn’t have been followed, it would be extremely likely that we would have been preceded by intelligent beings. I’ve heard all those possible answers and more, they’re quite popular in science fiction, but not in real science.
Nothing as far as I can see either. We were talking about the possibility of intelligent life on other planets which would almost be a necessity if evolutionary theory was correct, and entirely possible with a designer.
Zen
I suppose it would be possible, but again, unlikely, because the element that was used would be recognized as conducive to life, and would be throughout the universe, so we would know about it being possible.
I heard that it was definitely ruled out. One thing for sure, there are microbe fossils on Mars, but they come from Earth. Microbes have been found at the very outer reaches of the atmosphere, where they can easily be blown into space by the solar winds and distributed to the nearby moons and planets.
I suppose it would be possible, but again, unlikely, because the element that was used would be recognized as conducive to life, and would be throughout the universe, so we would know about it being possible.
I heard that it was definitely ruled out. One thing for sure, there are microbe fossils on Mars, but they come from Earth. Microbes have been found at the very outer reaches of the atmosphere, where they can easily be blown into space by the solar winds and distributed to the nearby moons and planets.
Extrafire said:
Therefore it would be possible for a cataclysmic event...such as an asteroid or moon fragment to hit the planet causing these microbes to be thrown out into space landing any where. They could land on pieces of rock thrown out from the planet carried even further into space.
As for the rocks from Mars I haven't really kept up on them.
As we have barely gotten out of our solar system, it is unlikely that we would know if anything has come from another universe into our galaxy.