What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by amannion
Speculation and wishful thinking?
That's rich coming from you.

No matter how much you might like it or want ti to be true, there is no link - I'll say it again in capitals since everyone seems to like that for emphasis - NO LINK between evolution and the origin of life.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting a link between the theory of continental dr ...[text shortened]... ist - but the possibility exists - which takes me back to my original question in Post #1.

No matter how much you might like it or want ti to be true, there is no link - I'll say it again in capitals since everyone seems to like that for emphasis - NO LINK between evolution and the origin of life.

So are you going to tell me why the Stanley Miller experiment was at first hailed as such a major breakthrough in Evolutionary Science?

Since a working model of life's origins does not yet exist (no matter what Scott might tell us)...

How do you as an atheist then explain the origin of life?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Christianity is not logically consistent. No faith system is. The abscence of logic is almost the escence of faith. It is the acceptance of something without the support of logic. Most faith systems go a step furthur and become the acceptance of something inspite of the existence of conflicting logic. Christianity is based on the belief in an entity (God) ...[text shortened]... ained away by Christians as being logic on a 'higher plane' that us mortals cannot understand.

I suggest you listen to Ravi Zacharias's logical defence of the Christian faith before you comment on this topic again.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, but you are waffling on as if you have the first clue about either this subject or the study of science in general. You have demonstrated a lack of any type of clue whatsoever, so I'm merely offering prudent advice.

I gather you are not going to prove me wrong then?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Me.

Therefore you cannot believe in absolute truth, since what is true for you may not be true for someone else.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Therefore you cannot believe in absolute truth, since what is true for you may not be true for someone else.

That's true in regards to religion (and pretty much destroys any argument of the "logic" of Christianity as anyone can make the same arguments from a different viewpoint) but in science there is nothing but absolute truth. The Greenland Vikings either traded with the Inuit or they didn't (to give an example from history), whether or not the current evidence can say a precise yes or no is irrelevant. One or the other was true and the fact that the question is answerable right now doesn't change that.
That the Greenland Vikings didn't trade with the Inuit in any appreciable way is true for everyone. It doesn't matter if you knew it or not it's still true for you.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's true in regards to religion (and pretty much destroys any argument of the "logic" of Christianity as anyone can make the same arguments from a different viewpoint) but in science there is nothing but absolute truth. The Greenland Vikings either traded with the Inuit or they didn't (to give an example from history), whether or not the current evidenc ...[text shortened]... y is true for everyone. It doesn't matter if you knew it or not it's still true for you.

Do you mean to say that absolute truth can change from day to day?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that absolute truth can change from day to day?

Learn to read. Absolute truth is exactly what it says on the tin. Absolute. Whether we know what the absolute truth is can change. A faulty premise or flawed experiment can give people what they think is the absolute truth but is in fact wrong.

It's like this. Say you are playing Find the Lady and the person you are playing against shuffles the cards. You point to where you think the Queen is. You could be wrong or right. At the last moment you change your mind and point at a different card. You could still be wrong or right. You changing your mind hasn't changed where the Queen actually is though (its position is an absolute truth). It hasn't moved at all (it's under his hat).

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Learn to read. Absolute truth is exactly what it says on the tin. Absolute. Whether we know what the absolute truth is can change. A faulty premise or experiment can give people what they think is the absolute truth but is in fact wrong.

So how do you test in science whether or not you used a faulty premise? What is the absolute point of reference used to decide whether or not the premise was faulty? (with regards to origins)

Originally posted by dj2becker
So how do you test in science whether or not you used a faulty premise? What is the absolute point of reference used to decide whether or not the premise was faulty? (with regards to origins)

It varies from field to field.
If your scientific field involves theoretical calculations (pure math, some physics &c.) you go back to axioms. If it follows logically from basic axioms then you aren't following a faulty premise.
If your field involves prediction followed by experimentation then you can check your premises via experimentation.
If your field doesn't involve either of those you can substitute multiple agreeing results (pollen counts in mud layers agreeing with written accounts agreeing with icecores).
and so on.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
It varies from field to field.
If your scientific field involves theoretical calculations (pure math, some physics &c.) you go back to axioms. If it follows logically from basic axioms then you aren't following a faulty premise.
If your field involves prediction followed by experimentation then you can check your premises via experimentation.
If your f ...[text shortened]... ollen counts in mud layers agreeing with written accounts agreeing with icecores).
and so on.

I was specifically refering to the field of origins.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I was specifically refering to the field of origins.

You'd have to ask scott. I'm an electrical engineer not a biochemist.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You'd have to ask scott. I'm an electrical engineer not a biochemist.

Do you mean to say that you have never thought about that yourself or even had the desire to know the answer to that question?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that you have never thought about that yourself or even had the desire to know the answer to that question?

I can only give a partial answer without risking being wrong in the details so I thought I'd leave the entire thing for scott but if you want something now.

In the study of the origins of life [I assume you mean from non-life here rather than say the study of occupation of land &c.] we rely on experiments (such as the Miller-Uray experiment and various others) which agree with predictions made based on the understanding of chemistry.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I can only give a partial answer without risking being wrong in the details so I thought I'd leave the entire thing for scott but if you want something now.

In the study of the origins of life [I assume you mean from non-life here rather than say the study of occupation of land &c.] we rely on experiments (such as the Miller-Uray experiment and various others) which agree with predictions made based on the understanding of chemistry.

So how does man's understanding of Chemistry determine whether or not you used a faulty premise in your experiment?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So how does man's understanding of Chemistry determine whether or not you used a faulty premise in your experiment?

It doesn't. The agreement between experimental results and understanding does that.