Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why don't we still see more of the spontaneous life popping up out of springs?
In creationism the main reason used to debunk it is it's impossible to prove.
So then that must mean the scientific method can be applied to the possibly billions of extinct species along with the the ones currently living and have a clear impossible to disprove experiment.
Can you restate this so it's a little bit more clear what you're saying? The second sentence isn't clear in particular. "Debunk it" refers to what? Debunk evolution?
But evolution is easy to debunk. That nobody has done it is pretty strong support in its favor.
Those aren't limits on how we understand the world, which was broadbill's point.
According to the scientific method if you can not test it it's not fact. Those things limitations with all the math in the world still have limitations on how far they can be understood. You can only learn so much about something that you can never actually test. That's not to say we can't map it in a billion different ways. For example when we get CERN up and running and they get to test residual after colliding haldrons we might have information that allows us to put numbers on things we could never see before which will alow us to map it but it's quiet obvious as long as the math is correct that black holes past the event horizon leave no room for physical testing.
So why don't we still see more of the spontaneous life popping up out of springs?
This has been covered already...try to keep up. Long story short: Theory of evolution has to do with how life has changed over time and has given rise to more evolved/complicated organisms from simple ones. AGAIN-it does not attempt to explain how life came about from inorganic sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
In creationism the main reason used to debunk it is it's impossible to prove.
So then that must mean the scientific method can be applied to the possibly billions of extinct species along with the the ones currently living and have a clear impossible to disprove experiment.
Again, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a theory. A Theory can technically never be 100% proven or 100% disproven. There is only evidence which is either in favor or not in favor of said theory.
Of the accumulated evidence, it points OVERWHELMINGLY that the Theory of evolution is correct.
Conversely, there is absolutely no credible evidence that points to creationism/Intelligent design as a plausible explanation for the diversity of life we see on this planet....since there really isn't any evidence you can't even really call it a theory.
broadbill originally said: Dude, what's your point here? I'm pretty sure we COMPLETELY disagree here. It sounds as if you think there is just some things that are beyond our understanding and twisted my words around to agree with you.
Just to be clear: I think that there is NO limit to of our ability to understand our universe, we are just limited by our ability to measure/quantify/observe it. [End Quote]
Maybe you should mellow out dude. I quoted a few words of yours verbatim and made no attempt to twist them. I do not need to agree with you nor do I need your agreement with me.
You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that my original statement was a copout or an excuse to give up. Perhaps you jumped the gun a bit by concluding that from my original statement. Yes. I think it is possible that there are things beyond our comprehension. That does not necessarily mean that there are such things. Is that too esoteric for you?
Lastly, I thought I agreed with your statement about the challenge of teaching creation as science though I said it in a more general way. Is it possible to agree with you there but not elsewhere?
Hey never mind all that other stuff. What do you think the possibilities of applying this unlimited understanding we humans have to our troubled economy?
The concept of evolution or the fact that it happened at all is not controversial to those who understand science and the practitioners of it. What is controversial are the details of the evolutionary process (eg Gould's punctuated equilibrium versus the more "orthodox" version espoused by Dawkins and the neo-Darwinists).
So why don't we still see more of the spontaneous life popping up out of springs?
Actually, you would if you looked in the right places. Deep-sea hydrothermal vents (aka black smokers) are sources of sulfides and super-heated water along midocean ridges miles below the surface of the sea. Clusters of these frequently support complex ecosystems of life known nowhere else.
You would if you looked in the right places. Deep-sea hydrothermal vents (aka black smokers) are sources of sulfides and super-heated water along midocean ridges miles below the surface of the sea. Clusters of these frequently support complex ecosystems of life known nowhere else.
The same can be said of junior high school gym lockers.
Seriously, though -- who knows how old the vents are? These ecosystems may be eons old. They may well have popped out in the mesozoic era. A quick perusal of Wikipedia yields the theory "life originated at hydrothermal vents from inorganic precursors", which should make all you something-from-nothing fans giddy with joy...
This has been covered already...try to keep up. Long story short: Theory of evolution has to do with how life has changed over time and has given rise to more evolved/complicated organisms from simple ones. AGAIN-it does not attempt to explain how life came about from inorganic sources.
Again, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a theory. A Theory can technically never be 100% proven or 100% disproven. There is only evidence which is either in favor or not in favor of said theory.
Of the accumulated evidence, it points OVERWHELMINGLY that the Theory of evolution is correct.
Conversely, there is absolutely no credible evidence that points to creationism/Intelligent design as a plausible explanation for the diversity of life we see on this planet....since there really isn't any evidence you can't even really call it a theory.
We've gone around and around with this....
Wow... I suggest starting back on page one yourself. The post was a direct response to the original question. The reason it's so controversial is you claim nothing can be proven in the thought process of creationism and then turn around and use circumstantial evidence to try and prove evolution. Disregarding that the actual fact it can never be proven scientifically with the scientific method...just overwhelmingly with circumstantial evidence. And I think you missed Darwin's whole reason for his studies if you think it doesn't attempt to trace back to biogenesis or the beginning of life. Reverse engineering is the only way (if possible) to ever recreate those conditions. If it took billions of years to happen it's not likely we are gonna accidentally fall upon the answer.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 01-21-2009 at 02:38 PM..
Anyone can make general statements and seem prophetical.
Now, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Whether or not someone got lucky in predicting some events has no bearing on the factual evidence of evolution.
Then prove it wrong. Show us all, as Idahogie has said, that the Bible is a book of fables.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Applying our unlimited ability to fix the economy
