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?
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 these other abilities would allow life to form.
All those probably's are just conjecture, guesses, faith. Yes, we can measure evolutionary changes today, but we have no measurements from back then. All we have is a theory, a best guess, of what might have happened. Yes, I know, theories are science, they're best guesses based upon a solid bed of hard evidence. But we have no evidence of this acid ever having changed form, but it's needed for the theory of evolution to work, so it becomes part of the theory, despite it's lack of that bed of hard evidence.
DF
PS
The more I think about it the more I think Scotty said this is HIS best guess and it may not be generally accepted. But with as much harping as there is about TE accounting for the source of life, the generally accepted theory has to be something similar.
1 edit
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
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 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.
Evolution simply posits that when you have a replicating entity, with inherited properties, and the possibility of errors from generation to generation - then evolution will occur. That is, changes will occur in the replicating entities that enable them to survive in changing environments.
(Apologies to evolutionary biologists who might cringe at my crappy explanation.)
The origin of life is a completely separate issue - not dependent on evolution and having no relation to evolution. There are a number of theories around about how life might have formed on Earth - if indeed it actually did form here, and not somehwere else altogether - but it should be made clear, these are in very early stages of development. They are NOT accepted by the general scientific community in the same way evolution is.
Are either of these areas faith?
No, faith is a belief in something where either no evidence exists to support that belief, or where evidence shows that that belief is not supported.
No scientist would claim evolutionary theory or any of the theories of the origins of life are believed without evidence.
Yes there are scientists that hold to their theories long after evidence and experimentation and modelling suggest that they are wrong. Scientists are people like everyone else, with biases and feelings and strengths and weaknesses.
But no scientist would claim the basis of any theory is faith and for you or anyone else to make the claim is wrong, insulting to science and scientists, and makes it pretty clear that you have no idea what science is actually about.
Will you please shut up, or start making sense ...
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.
The hypothesis of Inteligent Design could equally be considered a scientific hypothesis. However it is a hypothesis which has been shown to be invalid (as there is no supporting evidence and plenty of evidence to the contrary) and thus discarded by the majority of the scientific community.
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.
Has any major evolutionary change every been recorded anywhere,
outside of someone connecting dots on what they 'think' might
be the right way to look at fossils? Has anyone seen in a lab or the
wild anything outside of small changes within living systems? I
believe you will see that the only thing supporting the belief system
that is evolution, is how people connect the dots within the fossil
record, which may or may not be true, when it comes to major changes
in life. It is a belief, a matter of faith, it is not anything that can be
shown as true to that degree only believed.
Kelly
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
too. I believe people walk out their faith daily as they believe
reality is, and sometimes they even walk against what they believe
to be true too. I don't think 'faith' is a dirty word as some seem to.
Kelly
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.
be taken on faith. I got news for you, if you believe in the the big
bang or some steady state universe, you are in the murky depths
of creationism resides in.
Kelly