|
bumblie
Jan 31, 2005, 6:01 PM
Post #1 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet.
Is there anything more than pure conjecture to support your position?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 31, 2005, 6:05 PM
Post #2 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet.
You're asking a high school biology question.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 31, 2005, 6:14 PM
Post #5 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet. You're asking a high school biology question. -Jay
Is the answer factual or merely conclusions based on assumptions?
|
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
Jan 31, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #6 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
Is there proof of how things started from the Creationist point of view?
Maybe a postcard God sent you of him and Adam and Eve chillin' in the Garden of Eden? Or a T-shirt that says "Our Father made the World in 7 days and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"?
K.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jan 31, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #7 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet.
Barring any court acceptable PROOF, we'll just have to settle with the next most far-fetched theory, that some mythical diety created everything.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jan 31, 2005, 6:22 PM
Post #8 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
This thread's getting good already Bumblie, seems like some folks here are very happy to demand indelible, concrete, irrefutable proof from others, but get a little bit upset when someone asks them to back up their beliefs.
Nice one.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Jan 31, 2005, 6:22 PM
Post #9 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: Is there proof of how things started from the Creationist point of view? Maybe a postcard God sent you .... |
|
|
|
|
kimmyt
Jan 31, 2005, 6:34 PM
Post #10 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 4546
|
That was the point my friend. *shakes head* There is no proof on either stance. Therefore, the idea of arguing about it is a bit silly.
K.
|
|
|
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Jan 31, 2005, 6:38 PM
Post #11 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 362
|
The 'Spark of Life' was modeled successfully in the Miller-Urey experiment which showed how lightning bolts in the early atmosphere of the earth could have formed amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins, and thus life. Extensions of this experiment also showed how the nucleotides that form the base pairs of DNA and RNA could have been formed in the toxic broth that supplanted water on earth's surface billions of years ago. This isn't my field, so I'll just leave you with the article and let you draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
joshj
Jan 31, 2005, 6:42 PM
Post #12 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 302
|
In reply to: There is no proof on either stance.
I'm with you Kimmy... no "proof" in the true sense of the word for any of the theories out there.
I'm not touching this one with a 39 1/2 foot pole.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Jan 31, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #13 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 362
|
Also, when trying to piece together events of 4,000,000,000 years ago, it's more a matter of evidence than proof. The difference between the creationists and the evolutionists is that the evolutionists test their theories - sometimes proving themselves wrong in the process - and step-by-step are able to piece together a more complete picture of our actual origins from observable facts. Creationists believe what they are told, and yell 'Sacrilege!' when anyone disagrees.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jan 31, 2005, 6:56 PM
Post #14 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet. Is there anything more than pure conjecture to support your position?
Reading carefully, bumblie's asking for proof on how we got to the point when life began, not how things have gone since then.
So perhaps it's more of a high school geology question than a high school biology question.
And so, I would ask, what does evolution have to do with that question, anyways?
|
|
|
|
|
gritstoner
Jan 31, 2005, 7:07 PM
Post #15 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2003
Posts: 529
|
In reply to: The 'Spark of Life' was modeled successfully in the Miller-Urey experiment which showed how lightning bolts in the early atmosphere of the earth could have formed amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins, and thus life. Extensions of this experiment also showed how the nucleotides that form the base pairs of DNA and RNA could have been formed in the toxic broth that supplanted water on earth's surface billions of years ago. This isn't my field, so I'll just leave you with the article and let you draw your own conclusions.
that experiment was actually rigged slightly. all the right things were provided in the simulation. now that fact of the matter is i believe something like this did happen, but i'm playing the devils advocate with this experiment.
in the simulation, everything was provided for, where as during the evolution, all the gas, sludge and other nesecarys came around at different points, and in differing quantities
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 31, 2005, 7:09 PM
Post #16 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism debate being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet. Is there anything more than pure conjecture to support your position?
Con·jec·ture ( P )Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jan 31, 2005, 7:15 PM
Post #17 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
And just to bite the bullet and seemingly provide bumblie with what he wants, no we don't have "proof" or even a really feasible explanation for how we went from a goo ripe with proteins to actual life. I have my hypotheses, but I'm no molecular biologist. And even if we did, you'd still chip at it because its just conjecture. Afterall, none of us were there, and even if one of us was there at the birth of life on earth, why should we believe you? Couldn't you have doctored the photos? Fudged the data? Maybe you're just lying to us. We wouldn't know.
So now lets turn this around. How can you prove that creation was the birth of life? Oh, right, the bible. Ha! Lets just take your word on it that its true. I mean afterall, it was inspired by God (according to you Bumblie). But how do you know it was inspired by God? 5000 years of dogma? A couple of verses from that same volume? That's a middle school level argument of the same form as "you're stupid, because you are!"
Its circular.
So we're back where we started. Understand that a great many scientists are not looking to disprove God. We're so far past that point that it doesn't matter anymore. They want to know the mind of God, everything else is just details (that's an Einstein quote by the way). Moreover, once we have life ex nihilio figured out, we can start doing it ourselves. Don't delude yourself into thinking that some knowledge can't ever have a practical purpose. All knowledge is either knowledge that humanity can use in its lifetime or knowledge that humanity can't use in its lifetime. So, once we can induce life from abiotic sludge, then we will have truly killed the gods of old. Until then, you're safe. But understand also that the question is not "how?", its "how can we do it too?".
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 31, 2005, 7:16 PM
Post #18 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Say you walk into a room, and flick the light switch. There *is* a bulb in the socket, but the light does not come on.
you hypothesize, that maybe the switch malfuntioned, so you flick it a few more times, and it still doesnt come on. that theory is discarded.
you hypothesize that the light bulb is burnt out, and so you take the bulb out, and put a new one in. you turn the switch again. the light comes on, PROOF, that the light bulb was burnt out wasnt it.
WRONG. are there any *other* explainations? what if the light bulb wasnt screwed in all the way?
you hypothesize that the light bulb was not screwed in all the way. you partially unscrew the new bulb you put in, and try to turn it on. sure enough, it does not work. you take that bulb out, put the original bulb back in, make sure to screw it in tight, and it works. you partially unscrew it, and it doesnt work. now what.
you have *evidence* that the light bulb was partially unscrewed, but still viable, from the final experiment. however, you can never prove that that that is what happened. because you altered the conditions of the experiment by taking it out in the first place.
in the Miller experiment, you have evidence of how life could have occured. but no, you can never prove that that is what happened, becaues it is never again repeatable, just as the light bulb experiment is never again repeatable because you took out the original bulb.
to *PROVE* something, you have to be able to repeat it and show that it will always happen this way. thus has gravity been proved. two masses *in isolation* attract each other with a magnitude of G*m1*m2/r^2. . it happens to happen that way every time.
life originating, however, only happened the once. or if it happened more than once, all off those times are anyways lost to us. we will never be able to duplicate it, and thus, "prove" as you are asking, no. we cannot do.
edited to correct my statement about gravity.
|
|
|
|
|
joshj
Jan 31, 2005, 7:22 PM
Post #19 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 302
|
Thus why, in scientific terms, it takes YEARS for a theory to become a law... and some theories never become law.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
wingnut
Jan 31, 2005, 7:22 PM
Post #20 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 754
|
In reply to: Say you walk into a room, and flick the light switch. There *is* a bulb in the socket, but the light does not come on. you hypothesize, that maybe the switch malfuntioned, so you flick it a few more times, and it still doesnt come on. that theory is discarded. you hypothesize that the light bulb is burnt out, and so you take the bulb out, and put a new one in. you turn the switch again. the light comes on, PROOF, that the light bulb was burnt out wasnt it. WRONG. are there any *other* explainations? what if the light bulb wasnt screwed in all the way? you hypothesize that the light bulb was not screwed in all the way. you partially unscrew the new bulb you put in, and try to turn it on. sure enough, it does not work. you take that bulb out, put the original bulb back in, make sure to screw it in tight, and it works. you partially unscrew it, and it doesnt work. now what. you have *evidence* that the light bulb was partially unscrewed, but still viable, from the final experiment. however, you can never prove that that that is what happened. because you altered the conditions of the experiment by taking it out in the first place. in the Miller experiment, you have evidence of how life could have occured. but no, you can never prove that that is what happened, becaues it is never again repeatable, just as the light bulb experiment is never again repeatable because you took out the original bulb. to *PROVE* something, you have to be able to repeat it and show that it will always happen this way. thus has gravity been proved. two masses will always attract each other with a magnitude of G*m1*m2/r^2. . it happens to happen that way every time. life originating, however, only happened the once. or if it happened more than once, all off those times are anyways lost to us. we will never be able to duplicate it, and thus, "prove" as you are asking, no. we cannot do.
Yes, definently. *claps*.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 31, 2005, 7:23 PM
Post #21 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: With the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Creationism being repeatedly beaten to death, I was wondering if the Evolutionists out there can offer up any PROOF on how we got to the point when life began on this planet. Is there anything more than pure conjecture to support your position?
I'm also thinking that this sounds like a geological question. The proof is in Heaven. I mean the heavens. While astronomers are almost able to witness planetary formation in progress, witnessing the formation of galaxies has become commonplace. And, it's rather obvious that the process takes longer than seven days.
Creationism is either a myth or a metaphor. Take your pick.
A better question is why are God and evolution so often viewed as mutually exclusive. To my mind one attempts to answer the how of things and the other the why. Could evolution not be God's how?
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jan 31, 2005, 7:30 PM
Post #22 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
This thread proves that some bait works better then others.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jan 31, 2005, 7:33 PM
Post #23 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: to *PROVE* something, you have to be able to repeat it and show that it will always happen this way. thus has gravity been proved. two masses will always attract each other with a magnitude of G*m1*m2/r^2. . it happens to happen that way every time.
Actually it doesn't, but for our purposes it doesn't matter.
Stupid bloody relativity.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 31, 2005, 7:36 PM
Post #24 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: A better question is why are God and evolution so often viewed as mutually exclusive. To my mind one attempts to answer the how of things and the other the why. Could evolution not be God's how?
You mean something like "intelligent design"? :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Jan 31, 2005, 7:36 PM
Post #25 of 138
(2152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 362
|
In reply to: that experiment was actually rigged slightly. all the right things were provided in the simulation. now that fact of the matter is i believe something like this did happen, but i'm playing the devils advocate with this experiment. in the simulation, everything was provided for, where as during the evolution, all the gas, sludge and other nesecarys came around at different points, and in differing quantities
That's correct to a point. There were two separate experiments, the MU experiment, which showed how protiens could be formed, and the later Oro experiment which was able to create nucleotides. Those two processes did not have to happen simultaneously in experiment, or primodial earth.
In the orignal MU experiment, as the story is told, a grad student mistakenly added oxygen to the mixture, forgetting that there was no oxygen in the atmosphere until much, much later. Well, methane, oxygen, lightning... it was an exciting test run to be sure.
But the basis of the MU experiment was to take what was known of the early conditions of the earth and recreate them as closely as possible. They had some idea of what the early atmosphere and weather was like, and on paper it looked as though all the requisites were there to create amino acids. So they put it all together in a glass bulb, turned on the power, and voila! Protein shake!
Could that lightning have been the finger of God? Sure! Did God put those gasses together on this rocky ball that just happened to be the right temperature? Why not? She probably put that ball there in the first place! The point is, scientists actively and critically try to determine how we came into being, regardless of what name is applied to the fundamental laws and forces that shape the universe. They are pearing into God's design; Her method, if you will. Creationists, on the other hand, take the bible waaaaaaaayyyyyy too literally. Face it, the bible is a story. It was written by poets, translated from some previous culture, who translated it from some previous culture's mythology. It is the word of man, not God; yet for whatever reason creationists insists that God mustn't have deviated from it! Occasionally, scientists must circumvent the limited vocabulary of mortal man to describe the true nature of God. Do creationists appreciate being brought closer to the mind of their creator? Not if it deviates from their word!
Is science the be all end all? No. But it at least seeks truth in the form of that which can be proven true from observation (of God's creation), evidence (artifacts of God creation), and reproducable facts (which must obey the laws God put in place, obviously). Where do the creationists get their truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
