29 Mar '06 01:52>
fundamentalists have evidently given up trying to elevate creationism to the level of science so now they try to drag science into the murky depths that creationism resides in.
Originally posted by amannionTake the origin of life (based on what scotty posted a while back).
Firstly past extrapolations ARE science.
Secondly, can you tell me what are the guesses that scientists have made that prepresume the theory?
Originally posted by DragonFriendAbiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
Take the origin of life (based on what scotty posted a while back).
As my foggy memory recalls, an amino acid rubino (or some such thing) was PROBABLY a different shape/size when life was forming because the earth's atmosphere was so different. In this other state, it PROBABLY had other properties that allowed it to do things it can't do today. And the ounting for the source of life, the generally accepted theory has to be something similar.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
people argue over.
Kelly
Originally posted by DragonFriendFirstly, let's just clarify one major issue. The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, nor in fact does it need to.
Take the origin of life (based on what scotty posted a while back).
As my foggy memory recalls, an amino acid rubino (or some such thing) was PROBABLY a different shape/size when life was forming because the earth's atmosphere was so different. In this other state, it PROBABLY had other properties that allowed it to do things it can't do today. And the ...[text shortened]... ounting for the source of life, the generally accepted theory has to be something similar.
Originally posted by DragonFriendAs already stated by others, there is no faith involved. There are a number of hypotheses for the origin of life. They all stand as valid hypotheses until they are disproved. However they are not believed nor taken as fact by anyone. For them to reach Theory status they need fairly hard evidence and a lack of evidence to the contrary. However, even as hypotheses they are still part of science. I disagree with other posters that the origin of life has nothing to do with The Theory of Evolution. Although the origin of life is not explained in the Theory of Evolution it nevertheless should be mentioned in the theory and it is quite likely that processes involved in evolution such as natural selection which happen today and have been proven to work, were involved in the origin of life. Note that I did not say I believe this but only that it is quite likely and definitely possible until proved otherwise - ie a hypothesis.
Take the origin of life (based on what scotty posted a while back).
As my foggy memory recalls, an amino acid rubino (or some such thing) was PROBABLY a different shape/size when life was forming because the earth's atmosphere was so different. In this other state, it PROBABLY had other properties that allowed it to do things it can't do today. And th ...[text shortened]... o work, so it becomes part of the theory, despite it's lack of that bed of hard evidence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me ask you, have you witnessed major evolutionary change?
You clearly have no understanding of what science is. What you have described (The Theory of Evolution) as faith is most definately science. To believe it to be 100% true may be faith but to say that it is a well defined theory that is currently the best explanation for the evidence available is most definately science.
Originally posted by NemesioI know we have, I've gone around and around with this with others
Kelly,
You and I have danced this one before. When you refer to 'faith' you
make no distinction between things for which we have some, little,
lots of, and no evidence.
It's a meaningless term the way you use it, because it fails to incorporate
how much/little we know about a given topic.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nomindCreation is not science it is a singlar supernatual event, it can only
fundamentalists have evidently given up trying to elevate creationism to the level of science so now they try to drag science into the murky depths that creationism resides in.