It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is creation valid science?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I have noticed many discussions, here an ATS regarding creationism -vs- evolutionism. I have made the argument many times that substantiel evidence for design cannot be ignored, remember for evolution to be soley responsible for all life, including man, you have to assume that spontaneous generation is scientifically valid. In short, how did the first pre-biotic molecules become the first single celled living organisms.I thought i would post some counter arguments, that IMO, are valid evidences of design.


How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter ... [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."



Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work - in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American


I think its important to also recognize the complicated nature of single celled life, and that it takes an incredible leap-of-logic to assume this is the natural product of non-living materials to become living and eventually sentient.I offer the following quotes


What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any manmade thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.



Next I would like to explore mutations as the vehicle by which evolution creates new species:



Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.


My question for evolutionists(and I, by no means mean to be sarcastic or condescending), is this not a valid observation, should we not have some evidence in the fossil record for these "half-breeds" caught in the act of evolving. Considering the fact that all would accept evolution would have to be a very slow process, wouldn't you expect to find numerous fossils showing us evolution in the process.

Finally i'll close with this last quote:

Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on." Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170.
Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." Ibid. p. 39.
Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:
"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.

I realize many here will disagree, and I think that is healthy and I welcome the different perspectives, but I have noticed alot seem to think because you are a christian you are blind to the science of evolution. Firstly if evolution(with or without spontaneous generation) is ultimately proven valid then ill still be a christian and will still believe in God as the creator. But if we are to be honest its probably more true that nobody has it completely figured, and I think to consider someone naive, sheep, fundamentalist(enter your creationist slur here), simply because they dont believe its proven we evolved into the myriad of earth life out of non-living materials by chance. I dont deny the considerable amount of research on evolution, but to suggest you cant merge creationism(old-earth) and science is flatly, IMO, false.

I found alot of material about this :here




posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
If you're doing science, you're following the scientific method. If there is any mention of any sort of god, it is automatically not science. It's not meant to offend anyone who is religious either - there are other things that are studied that is not science, for example black holes. If anyone tries to tell you differently, ask any astrophysicist if studying a black hole is science, and they will say no (and I'm basing this on my department and other departments in universities I have visited).

Stephen Jay Gould, however, when studying and building the punctuated evolution model, was doing science. He was making observations and collecting realistic evidence and crunching numbers.

I guess my point is that it doesn't really matter which is science in a person's eyes. It matters more if it is consistent to what they already believe. I happen to be a man of science, so I lean towards Gould's work.

I have written a paper or two explaining Gould's theory and the evidence that supports it. Although I am a physicist now, years ago I was interested in biology for whatever reason



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I think the main problem with the creative design argument is that it is, like T-jesus said, not scientific.
Basically your proofs are not proofs of creative design, but arguments against evolution. You can't prove anything without showing some positive proof about the physical existence of god.

Is evolution perfect? No. But even if evolution was proven without a doubt to be wrong, all you would be doing is proving that evolution was wrong. You would still have no scientific proof for creative design.

BTW, this is just my opinion, but I don't really think this belongs in the science & technology forums.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I have noticed many discussions, here an ATS regarding creationism -vs- evolutionism. I have made the argument many times that substantiel evidence for design cannot be ignored, remember for evolution to be soley responsible for all life, including man, you have to assume that spontaneous generation is scientifically valid. In short, how did the first pre-biotic molecules become the first single celled living organisms.I thought i would post some counter arguments, that IMO, are valid evidences of design.


How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter ... [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."


There's a fine, but important, distinction to be made here. What you're looking at are two different areas here, evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution is a theory describing genetic change over time. By necessity, the theory of evolution can only start when there are biological entities present. Evolution says abosolutely nothing about how life got started, only what happened to it after life appeared.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand describes the beginings of life from non-biological materials. This theory supposes that life formed from a mix of non-living chemicals.

It should also be noted that both definitions above are very, very simplified. There are many different schools of thought within each theory. Still, it's best to know this before jumping in and "disproving" evolution. To criticise evolution for the shortcomings of abiogenesis would be like me criticizing Ford for making the absolutely crappy Honda Civic



Next I would like to explore mutations as the vehicle by which evolution creates new species:



Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses.


Just a nitpick, really, but evolution doesn't suggest that creatures move into higher forms, just different ones.



This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.


Not so much, and for a couple reasons:

First, the fossil record will be spotty because the conditions that cause fossilization are relatively rare. The biosphere, here on Earth, is really remarkably effective at recycling waste (read: dead) material. As a result, the vast majority of critters and plants will simply decay into nothing.

Second, mutation doesn't progress the way a photo-morph would on a computer: with, for example, a proto-whale's legs getting millimeter-by-millimeter shorter with each succeeding generation. Instead we'll see jumps, as some gene becomes dominant. This won't be "legs-to-flippers" jumps, but you may see, for example, a proto-whale with significantly larger feet to deal with the swampy environment that they seem to have inhabited.

Also, even if we could somehow have a complete fossil record of every creature that existed, we'd see far more failed mutations than successful ones. For every proto-wolf with better adaptation, to use the previous example, we'd see thousands with neutral or harmful mutations.


My question for evolutionists(and I, by no means mean to be sarcastic or condescending), is this not a valid observation, should we not have some evidence in the fossil record for these "half-breeds" caught in the act of evolving. Considering the fact that all would accept evolution would have to be a very slow process, wouldn't you expect to find numerous fossils showing us evolution in the process.


We have, though. The BBC had an article back in 2001 showing some of the major steps of the evolution of the whale.

Now that's not to say that there aren't problems within the current theory of evolution. There are a lot of bio doctoral students out there hoping to make a name for themselves by finding and correcting these problems. The framework, however, that genetic changes happen over time, is sound.

The reason that "evolutionists" such as myself tend to get a bit testy in these arguments is that creationists attempt to conflate a scientific theory with a statement of religious faith. The two, while not mutually exclusive, aren't the same sort of thing.

Science attempts to describe the physical universe, and only the physical universe. It does this by measuring the physical properties and making conclusions based on these measurements. It is an open process, challengable at every step of the way, and encourages this questioning.

Religion, though, is based on faith. You cannot measure God, you can't spell His proper name with the Roman, Cryllic, or Arabic alphabets, you can't describe the color of His eyes nor the length of His hair. We have no tools large enough to contain God, and so science must, necessarily, be blind to God. Individual scientists may find affirmation of their personal faith in the beauty of the physical properties of the univers, but we will never be able to say "...and so, because this mountain is exactly 42,178 feet high and made of granit, God exists."


I get cranky because, by trying to reduce God to a scientific theory, you reduce His glory.

[edit on 4/21/2005 by Whiskey Jack]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
.
Good science is about the scruptulous and rigorous collection of data. And dispassionate and unbiased formulation of hypothesis that fit the data.

The reality is to do all that tedious work, requires strong emotional desire.
Raw curiosity is the ideal motivation for producing this. The joy of discovery.
'I don't understand and am hungry to find out. And will gather every scrap of information i can about my question(s).'

Good science has been done by people with various agendas. Kepler wanted to prove some mystic theory about the 5 platonic/perfect solids. He instead did great science about the changing speeds of planetary bodies in elliptical orbits. Interestingly he had to use someone else's data to do it. He used Tyco Brahe's extremely accurate data, which he stole after years of begging for it when Brahe died.

Rigorously gathered and recorded data can be used years or centuries later by someone with a new hypothesis, to see if it holds up to historical data.

I am split between which is more valuable, the Theorist or the scruptulous data collector? Without the competent work of both useful science does not happen. The successful theorists usually get all the glory, and do invest a lot of effort in it, but a lot of unsung people do grinding data gathering.

It also reminds me of the problem with expecting/demanding that all science or math be of immediate applicability. Often it is the cross fertilization of far flung efforts that produce many of the treasures of modern technology. Sometimes these commercial/humanistic demands/expectations can be almost as big a drag on science/math as extreme bias or agendas.

Good scientists poor their hearts and souls into their work and IMHO should be revered for that alone. Then they take this information they have eaten, slept with and breathed for years and come up with some theory that fits with the data. Then they expose their data and theory to people who didn't pay with their time and energy for it. But because they have such an involvement with their data they usually come up with insights and ideas that all the blustering egos of others have difficulty shooting down.

When unbiased, scruptulous gathering of data is neglected in favor of some agenda, conscious or unconscious, it fails to be good science.

If someone has gathered scruptulous raw data, And can show that it supports a hypothesis, be that God, Intelligent design, Evolution or anything else, rational people will be more than happy to listen.

My impression is that people promoting 'Intelligent Design' [a euphamism for Creationism unless you are thinking of aliens] are doing shoddy science and shortchanging people. Their focus is supporting mysticism instead of pure discovery.

Intent changes manslaughter to murder.
Intent often changes science into propaganda.

If you have heard of interstellar seeding of life, which doesn't sound impossible, You may only need life to start on one planet in an entire Galaxy, there after seeding other viable planets. This could hugely increase the probability of life occuring here and on many other planets where seeds were able to take hold.
.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Creation Science is an oxymoron...



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Wow i forgot all about this thread and never replied to any of your posts, sorry. Allthough this has probably been beaten to death around here (yeah i'm guilty too
i figure, with the new forum category, i should probably contribute.


T_Jesus

If you're doing science, you're following the scientific method. If there is any mention of any sort of god, it is automatically not science. It's not meant to offend anyone who is religious either - there are other things that are studied that is not science, for example black holes. If anyone tries to tell you differently, ask any astrophysicist if studying a black hole is science, and they will say no (and I'm basing this on my department and other departments in universities I have visited).


Interesting perspective that i had not considered. How is the study of black holes not scientific? Is it because it cannot be measured(directly) or reproduced? I assume that's what you mean and why it's analgeous to Creationism. I see your point, but as a layman i would think that the study of black holes was scientific. Does that mean that the theory of "Hawking Radiation" is unscientific? I realize that this has nothing to do with Creationism, but if you could break it down for me i would appreciate it.


I guess my point is that it doesn't really matter which is science in a person's eyes. It matters more if it is consistent to what they already believe.


Probably true.


I happen to be a man of science, so I lean towards Gould's work.


Fair enough.

Leftbehind

Basically your proofs are not proofs of creative design, but arguments against evolution.


True, but certain aspects of Creationism(Christian) and Evolution(namely macro) contradict one another. If mainstrem science is convinced they allready know Evolution(as a whole) is fact, should not a creationist scientist show the faults in that logic?


BTW, this is just my opinion, but I don't really think this belongs in the science & technology forums.


Request granted and apparently SkepticOverlord agreed with you, however biased, ambiguous and uninformed his opinions on the subject.

WhiskeyJack


It should also be noted that both definitions above are very, very simplified. There are many different schools of thought within each theory. Still, it's best to know this before jumping in and "disproving" evolution. To criticise evolution for the shortcomings of abiogenesis would be like me criticizing Ford for making the absolutely crappy Honda Civic


I most certainly understand the difference between Darwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis. The naturallistic abiogenesis theory(ies) however are certainley derived from Evolutionary theory. The Evolution of the cell for example. Still it's best you know this before jumping in.



Just a nitpick, really, but evolution doesn't suggest that creatures move into higher forms, just different ones


So life is not more complex or higher than say 1 billion years ago? That's NOT true, but i'm sure you allready knew that.



I get cranky because, by trying to reduce God to a scientific theory, you reduce His glory.


Well said, but it's not my hope or intention to reduces His glory. Only to study His creation and glorify Him....give credit where credit is due, however unscientific that may be.

Still tho a very good post Jack and thanks for the links and info.


Slank
Nice post mostly op/ed so i'll only comment on this.


My impression is that people promoting 'Intelligent Design' [a euphamism for Creationism unless you are thinking of aliens] are doing shoddy science and shortchanging people. Their focus is supporting mysticism instead of pure discovery.


While i'll admit that most IDT proponents are either Christian, Muslim or Jew. IDT does not say anything about the designer( IOW God, gods, aliens) it simply tries to show detect or predict design....not designer. If we were designed by aliens(no i don't believe that, never-the-less tho) would that design be detectable/testable, is it only if God is the designer that it's unscientific? IOW we may never be able to prove God is the designer(my belief) but we should be able to detect the design, no?

sardion2000

Creation Science is an oxymoron...


Brilliant, informative and highly clever. Much information to absorb, i'll get back to ya.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I would not want to attend a university that claims that astrophysics is not a science.

EDIT:

www.sciencedaily.com...
Thirty years after astronomers discovered the mysterious object at the exact center of our Milky Way Galaxy, an international team of scientists has finally succeeded in directly measuring the size of that object, which surrounds a black hole nearly four million times more massive than the Sun. This is the closest telescopic approach to a black hole so far and puts a major frontier of astrophysics within reach of future observations. The scientists used the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) radio telescope to make the breakthrough.


Please explain to me how this is not a scientific discovery.

Zip

[edit on 6/29/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Its as valid as astrology in terms of science.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
While i'll admit that most IDT proponents are either Christian, Muslim or Jew. IDT does not say anything about the designer( IOW God, gods, aliens) it simply tries to show detect or predict design....not designer. If we were designed by aliens(no i don't believe that, never-the-less tho) would that design be detectable/testable, is it only if God is the designer that it's unscientific? IOW we may never be able to prove God is the designer(my belief) but we should be able to detect the design, no?




de·sign (dĭ-zīn')

v., -signed, -sign·ing, -signs.

v.tr.

To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
v.intr.
To make or execute plans.
To have a goal or purpose in mind.
To create designs.
n.

A drawing or sketch.
A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for construction or manufacture.
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant design.
The art or practice of designing or making designs.
Something designed, especially a decorative or an artistic work.
An ornamental pattern. See synonyms at figure.
A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development: the overall design of an epic poem.
A plan; a project. See synonyms at plan.

A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up practice on her own as soon as she was qualified.
Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by accident than by design.
A secretive plot or scheme. Often used in the plural: He has designs on my job.


Every single definition of the word design implies a "designer." Using the term as such is biased towards creationism. Simplifying the myriad processes that resulted in life on Earth as we know it into such a short, biased, dagger mantra is contrary to scientific method and scientific questioning, no matter if your intentions are to simplify science or imply that God created the processes. Both propositions are unnecessary in the classroom.

ID attempts to pair science with non-scientific explanations. This is unnecessary. If a child in a classroom asks, "yes, but WHY did the Big Bang occur? Why was the universe created?" The teacher in a regular science classroom should say simply "The answers to these such questions are unknown to science and perhaps unknowable. Many religions attempt to answer them, but I cannot. Today, we are learning about the processes - what we presume to know. Philosophical or religious discussion beyond these scientific processes is beyond the scope of this class."

Rather than,

"Well, we're not really sure if the Big Bang happened. We're not totally sure if abiogenesis was the beginning of life on Earth, or if something else happened. What could the something else be, you ask? Well, kids, we might have come from aliens *har har* OR maybe Lord God Almighty spoke the universe into existence... Yes, Jimmy? Oh, well, the Lord God Almighty was the creator of the universe... Please pull out your Bibles and open to Genesis."
(this is (of course satirical) but based on the "technical explanation" guide in the "teaching tools" section of the Intelligent Design Network).

This "technical explanation" provides this offering:


Good science and effective science education requires that origins science be conducted objectively and without an irrebuttable naturalistic assumption, or, for that matter, any other religious or philosophic assumption.

For this scientific reason, we believe schools should encourage their teachers to teach origins science in a way that is most consistent with the scientific method. The use of an irrebuttable assumption is essentially antagonistic to that method.


The thing is, evolutionary theory DOES employ the scientific method. It is entirely open to rebuttle/falsifiability, but as such it has not yet been proven false. If we take these teaching tools at face value, I see the implication that the ID movement seeks to motivate children to question, openly, in the classroom, "alternatives" to evolutionary theory, and while IDT puts a lab coat on the students and calls them scientific questioners in the process, the reality is that the students are NOT scientists and the only possible rebuttals they could have to scientific theory could not possibly be truly scientific. They would be religious.

Why don't these IDT people fight scientific theory at the SOURCE, rather than jumping on the final connection between teacher and student? If, to them, our science is so misguided, then surely they can prove such things as evolutionary theory false and we can all be on our way!

Zip

[edit on 6/29/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   

What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any manmade thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist

That is why not one single scientist suggests an entire cell developed at once by chance. For more info, read this. Your other points like about transitional forms in the fossil record have already been addressed.



Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:
"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.

Another selective misquote and misinterpretation of the facts by the creation crowd. What was calculated, was the chance of multiple mutations within a single nucleus, using the mutation rate estimated at the time of the publishing of "The Major Features of Evolution", which was in 1953. To put that into perspective, the structure of DNA was only discovered the same year. The exact quote was:



"Obviously...a process of simultaneous mutations has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.


This does not mean in any way that mutations play no part in evolution, only that multiple mutations within the same nucleus were at that time considered to play no part in the process of evolution. This has been selectively quoted, altered, misrepresented and twisted into the notion that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years. This illustrates clearly the deceptive nature and forked tongue of those seeking to undermine evolution because of theological reasons. As a sidenote that this notion is completely false, consider the fact that within our lifetime we have observed a mutation in an ape that made him walk upright. This is is clear evidence that the chance of good evolutionary results aren't remotely near one in 274 billion years.

www....-------------------------/library/cryptozoology/humanzee/



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I have noticed many discussions, here an ATS regarding creationism -vs- evolutionism. I have made the argument many times that substantiel evidence for design cannot be ignored, remember for evolution to be soley responsible for all life, including man, you have to assume that spontaneous generation is scientifically valid.

What reason is there to think that that is wrong? We assume that everything can be investigated scientifically, then we attempt to investigate, and see what happens. We can't, for example, inverstigate scientifically the nature of god, so we recognize that there is no 'science of god'. We can't demonstrate, sciencifically, that divine intervention occurs, or that miracles happen, so we recognize that there is no scientific theory of miracles. Man is investigating the origins of life from non-living chemicals, and nothing seems to be blocking that investigation at all. Its not complete, certainly, but the things we once thought immposible, aren't.




For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation.

Yeah, in medieval times. Thats when it was accepted. Modern organic and biochemistry are really recent branches of science. The fact that decaying meat doesn't produce living organisms isn't relevant.


If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the entire theory.

No it doesn't. All that the 'life thru putrification' experiments have demonstrated is that rotting flesh doesn't give rise to simple organisms, and similar experiements have only ever shown that the world, today, isn't an environment that tends to produce life spontaneously.

Also, expecting an advanced cell like an amoeba to form from raw chemicals is unrealistic, and its not what biologists expect to happen.



an incredible leap-of-logic to assume this is the natural product of non-living materials to become living and eventually sentient.

Sentience is irrelevant here.


What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell?

Since none of the people researching the origins of life expect a single celled organisms to arise spontaneously, this question is irrelevant. Its actually kind of funny, that anyone would even ask it. Its exactly like expecting mice to form from hay piles, or maggots from meat.



The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.

Self-organizing chemicals found in nature are more complex than cities. But we don't expect them to have been molded by god.

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
The present environment, not the pre-biotic environment.


"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years."

Thats preposterous. THere is no mimimum amount that is required for a chain of peptides to be considered a protein. Thats a claim that is on its face absurd. Besides which, no matter how 'improbable' anyone thinks these things are, comlex things do occur naturally, chemicals can indeed spontaneously arrange.


Next I would like to explore mutations as the vehicle by which evolution creates new species:

Mutation is not, strictly, said to produce new species. The idea that systemic mutations cause new species is 'mutationism', also sometimes called 'saltationism'. Mutation of genes can and does result in beneficial changes. But not necessarily species, species tend to be formed due to 'population' types of events, ie isolation, restriction of gene flow, etc.

This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries

Which is precisely what we see. We cannot draw a non-arbitrary boundary between reptiles and mammals in the fossil record, or dinosaurs and birds, or any group. When we can only look at whats living now, we see trememdous 'gaps' between forms, but where the fossil record is relatively detailed, we see that there are no 'types'.

with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.

This is completely incorrect. We expect that in the past, that there were large numbers of so-called 'transitionals', but there is absolutely no reason to think that they've all become fossilized and that all the fossils have been recovered. And yet, we do have lots of transitionals, we've been fortunate, we have things that aren't dinosaurs and aren't birds, but are dino-birds. We have fishy things with primitive legs, we have things that cover the full spectrum from primitive ape to advanced man. We would not expect these things if god created all types at once.

evolutionists(and I, by no means mean to be sarcastic or condescending)

Indeed, sometimes 'evolutionist' is used to mean 'people who have faith in the religion of evolution' or something like that, but it can infact, when used properly like you have been using it, be quite accurate. Ernst Mayr, for example, used the term 'Evolutionist' quite regularly.

is this not a valid observation, should we not have some evidence in the fossil record for these "half-breeds" caught in the act of evolving.

Yes, its reasonable to say that there should be transitionals between 'primitive' forms and the modern forms. And this indeed is what we have. However, it'd be inaccurate to think of these things as 'striving' to become reptiles, birds, or man. They merely are. They change over time, and when we hold the modern things today as an 'end point', we can talk about 'transitionals', but in reality, every species in the fossil record is a 'transitional', everything in the fossil record is doing just what 'transitionals' do, existing, and being subjected to natural selection. Sometimes the changes are perceived as 'big', sometimes we don't consider the changes to be important at all. But thats just perception.

Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on

This is true. Darwin recognized that populations are variable. He also recognized that later generations can have variation that extends into regions not previously covered, ie 'new' variation. He didn't know anything about genes or genetics, but he recognized that there was a 'something' that was producing un-directed and essentially random, new variation. He recognized that thats what allows new features to arise, as opposed to simply shifting a population to one end of its already existing variation. That 'something' was realized later to be mutations occuring in the genome.

Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it

This is simply untrue. There is no reason to think that mutations can't result in new variation.

Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism

Technically, many theorists now think that the majority of mutations are completley neutral, have no effect. Next in abundance are harmful mutations, whether somewhat harmful or completely fatal, and then comes in the rare beneficial mutations. But the rarity doesn't matter, beneficial mutations occur.

Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative

Darwin and his comtemporaries didn't understand the genome or genetics, and what they thought about mutations in the end isn't really relevant.

"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.

This is kind of silly, Darwin, Huxley (both of them) and Simpson were staunch evolutionists. Darwin was the most 'gradualistic' of the three, and the original huxely strongly felt that extreme gradualism wasn't necessary. Simpson agreed that evolution occured, he's most likely just noting here that its not as simple as a salamander having a huge mutation that makes it turn into or give birth to a lizard.

I have noticed alot seem to think because you are a christian you are blind to the science of evolution.

I find this strange, since most christians don't really have a problem with evolution, and most scientists are infact christians.

simply because they dont believe its proven we evolved into the myriad of earth life out of non-living materials by chance

The important thing to keep in mind here is that, while mutations are 'random', ie just because an organism could 'use', say, a mutation that makes its skin water-tight (like a lizard's) doesn't mean that they are going to get it. There is nothing 'directing' mutations, they literally occur randomly, the error-correcting mechanisms of the genetic machinery has a slight tendency to muck up, and the result is random mutations, etc etc. Once these random mutations are in the population, however, then the very non-random process of natural selection operates. Those who have happened to be fortunate enough to have some slight advantage, well, they have the advantage and thats what its all about. So long as the pressure is constant, say, for thicker skin, you'll tend to get populations with thicker and thicker skin (for example). That portion is what's usually termed 'progressive', but its base, the new variations, the mutations, are still random.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
If mainstrem science is convinced they allready know Evolution(as a whole) is fact, should not a creationist scientist show the faults in that logic?

There is the fact that the proportion of alleles within a population change over generational time. Thats the fact of evolution. The mechanism, natural selection, is theoretical.


Evolution of the cell for example.

But this is talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. Abiogenetics doesn't posit that you have chemicals, and then a full cell arose from that. This page is concerning itself with what happens after life has arisen, and what we can say about the evolution of these cells, such as when and how mutlicelularity arose, how the different organelles came to evolve within the already living cell, etc etc.


So life is not more complex or higher than say 1 billion years ago? That's NOT true, but i'm sure you allready knew that.

Complex and 'higher' are different terms tho. Of course, when you take two complex cells and get mutlicellularity, you've had an increase in the complexity, but is it 'higher'? Usually the terms 'higher' and 'primitive' and whatnot have ethical connotations, so they've fallen out of common usuage. A worm isn't really 'higher' than an amoeba, tho its certianly a much more complex animal. Also, higher tends to imply that there is something like a heirachy, and that life moves up this heirarchy, which isn't true,this is another way in which evolution is said to be random, because its not intently or inevitably progressing torwards these 'higher' forms.

Only to study His creation and glorify Him....give credit where credit is due, however unscientific that may be

But by stating that god's actions can be reduced to science you are removing god from the realm of the supernatural and simply making him yet another 'thing' in the world, one that can be captured, caught, and even theoretically refuted, but human logic, whereas an omnipotent god is above and beyond anything like that, and isn't subject to any 'petty' things that human's think about and tinker with.

IDT does not say anything about the designer(

It does seem to state that the designer is supernatural tho. They don't claim to be detecting the actions of a human-being or whatnot. And, indeed, because they are invoking intelligent agency with respect to the origin of life itself, then it must be supernatural, non-living, etc.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Like somebody already point out is a science already about the instantaneous burst of life. Still not proving anything concrete.

Now the problem with as a science is that creation as part of religion is base on faith, if you believe then it most be truth.

While science goes to a series of steps, to prove and make it a fact, Religion with creationism no necessarily have to follow any particular rules but the rule of faith.

Creationism only have to prove that through faith a God made earth and created man, is nothing to prove or test because all you need to do is believe.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this has been stated before on ATS but Andrew Crosse apartantly put electrcity thorugh some solution or rock or something and little yellow specks appaered in it. This has never been repeated because it was thought to be based on the book Frankestein whichwas made at the same time but was based on him not vice versa.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join