And now...

[tommyjones]

Well, if it's ever found, we can talk about whether or not it was provable.

But, realize, IF it ever is, the question then will be "yeah, but what about before that?" until we get to the origins of life. Separating the two theories is quite meaningless.

again, this shows a severe lack of understanding of the scientific method.


you make assumptions in science, the one in evolution is that life is here. Once you conceed that life is here it is easy to observe and document things about life. All you want to do is discuss where life came from, but the theory of evolution does not speak to that.

 

[This_person]

again, this shows a severe lack of understanding of the scientific method.


you make assumptions in science, the one in evolution is that life is here. Once you conceed that life is here it is easy to observe and document things about life. All you want to do is discuss where life came from, but the theory of evolution does not speak to that.

Well, let's take it to the first generation of a change in the species. Since there is only ONE cell to begin with, where did it come from? What caused it to evolve?

 

[tommyjones]

Well, let's take it to the first generation of a change in the species. Since there is only ONE cell to begin with, where did it come from? What caused it to evolve?

the theory doesnt care where it came from, that is the part of the scientific method you are not understanding.

i can study the sun and learn a lot about its compostion, and its life cycle, and when compared to other stars i can observe i can roughly determine the suns age, none of these thisgs require knowing where the sun came from or what started it burning.

 

[This_person]

the theory doesnt care where it came from, that is the part of the scientific method you are not understanding.

i can study the sun and learn a lot about its compostion, and its life cycle, and when compared to other stars i can observe i can roughly determine the suns age, none of these thisgs require knowing where the sun came from or what started it burning.

Okay, great. Show me the common link of all things back to that one cell, THEN I'll say it's provable.

Of course, it will still be meaningless. It could merely be the manner in which an intelligent designer set up His creations.

 

[tommyjones]

Okay, great. Show me the common link of all things back to that one cell, THEN I'll say it's provable.

Of course, it will still be meaningless. It could merely be the manner in which an intelligent designer set up His creations.

and there is the rub, you will claim it is meaningless no matter what level of proof is offered.

BTW, the inteligent design theory is an interesting paradox for christians. if you accept any part of it you are saying that the bible is not accurate. its an interesting fall back position for someone who says that god created man in the form of adam and eve.
while intelligent design is an attractive option and does indeed adress many of the "where did life come from" questions, it doesnt jive with christianity at all.

 

[This_person]

and there is the rub, you will claim it is meaningless no matter what level of proof is offered.

Much like you won't accept any part of any creationist theory, regardless of proof offered. That's what I was saying with WX when I said both sides unnecessarily dismiss each other. You can't see the possibility of anything other than random cosmic magic, and I can't see any way of proving an Intelligent Designer didn't make it happen.

BTW, the inteligent design theory is an interesting paradox for christians. if you accept any part of it you are saying that the bible is not accurate. its an interesting fall back position for someone who says that god created man in the form of adam and eve.
while intelligent design is an attractive option and does indeed adress many of the "where did life come from" questions, it doesnt jive with christianity at all.

Just as scientific theories of the origin of life vary, so do Intelligent Design theories. For example, the Christian version via the Bible is but one theory of Intelligent Design.

I take it you know of others?

 

[tommyjones]

Much like you won't accept any part of any creationist theory, regardless of proof offered. That's what I was saying with WX when I said both sides unnecessarily dismiss each other. You can't see the possibility of anything other than random cosmic magic, and I can't see any way of proving an Intelligent Designer didn't make it happen.Just as scientific theories of the origin of life vary, so do Intelligent Design theories. For example, the Christian version via the Bible is but one theory of Intelligent Design.

I take it you know of others?

i have never said that, i have only said that evolution isn't concerned with where the stuff comes from.

besides the only proof offered by creationist is that "the good book says so", and that "science cant explain where the stuff came from....."

 

[Marie]

it doesnt jive with christianity at all.

Your right, intelligent design is not Creationism, and although some may not be aware of this or think its a step in the right direction, it is not something a Christian should be endorsing!

 

[This_person]

i have never said that, i have only said that evolution isn't concerned with where the stuff comes from.

So, you accept it as a possibility?

besides the only proof offered by evolutionist is that "the science book says so", and that "religion can't explain where God came from....."

See the difference? Me either.....

 

[tommyjones]

So, you accept it as a possibility?See the difference? Me either.....

there is a huge difference, again, you obviously do not understand the scientific method at all.


there is a possibility that everything is in our collective consiousness and nothing is real. but there is no proof or evidence of that either.
FSM.......

 

[This_person]

there is a huge difference, again, you obviously do not understand the scientific method at all.

You keep saying that, but it's just not true!

I see no proof of a cosmic magic fairy that turned muck into life, you see now proof of an intelligent designer. What's the difference? If a tree falls in the forest, and someone cut it down, can we not determine that scientifically? If life is produced via a designer, can we not determine that scientifically? This is where I say you reject, out of hand, creationism or intelligent design as a possibility. Either you do, or you don't. Only you can actually say.

 

[tommyjones]

You keep saying that, but it's just not true!

I see no proof of a cosmic magic fairy that turned muck into life, (so you dont believe in an entity that lives in the sky, or somewhere up anyway, that magically made everything appear and magically breathed life into dirt?you see now proof of an intelligent designer. What's the difference? If a tree falls in the forest, and someone cut it down, can we not determine that scientifically? If life is produced via a designer, can we not determine that scientifically? This is where I say you reject, out of hand, creationism or intelligent design as a possibility. Either you do, or you don't. Only you can actually say.

yes, we can determine that there is a tree, and that it was cut down, and maybe even the method by which it was cut down. None of these things require us knowing how the tree came into existence. We dont need to know in order to figure out the rest.

 

[wxtornado]

I see no proof of a cosmic magic fairy that turned muck into life......

Oh the irony...........

 

[This_person]

yes, we can determine that there is a tree, and that it was cut down, and maybe even the method by which it was cut down. None of these things require us knowing how the tree came into existence. We dont need to know in order to figure out the rest.

Okay, now connect the dots.

We can determine if something occurred based on whether or not a being caused it to happen. If we can do that, we can determine whether or not life was created by an intelligent designer, and we can do it with the same scientific method that would determine any other source of life coming from non-life.

I'm saying that creationism is a valid potential theory, just like any other scientific theory. just like we can determine the mechanism that a beaver fells a log, we can deterine the mechanism that a creator, or designer, created life. Science may, I have faith, one day prove the existence of God.

 

[This_person]

Oh the irony...........

Well, you prove what it was then.

My point was the lack of any reasonable, provable, demonstratable theory as to how life began from science that's any better than God did it. The fairy was meant to just be a magical act, not with anyone actually performing it. Sorry for the mistype.

 

[tommyjones]

Okay, now connect the dots.

We can determine if something occurred based on whether or not a being caused it to happen. If we can do that, we can determine whether or not life was created by an intelligent designer, and we can do it with the same scientific method that would determine any other source of life coming from non-life.

I'm saying that creationism is a valid potential theory, just like any other scientific theory. just like we can determine the mechanism that a beaver fells a log, we can deterine the mechanism that a creator, or designer, created life. Science may, I have faith, one day prove the existence of God.

:completelackofunderstandingofscientificmethod:


Flying Spag. Monster ......

 

[This_person]

:completelackofunderstandingofscientificmethod:


Flying Spag. Monster ......

Instead of repeatedly attacking my ability to understand the scientific method, tell me what part of determining the method that life was created via a being is not potentially provable via a scientific method. Without saying the word religion, because I'm not talking about proving religion correct. I'm talking about proving the method life was created.

 

[tommyjones]

Instead of repeatedly attacking my ability to understand the scientific method, tell me what part of determining the method that life was created via a being is not potentially provable via a scientific method. Without saying the word religion, because I'm not talking about proving religion correct. I'm talking about proving the method life was created.

you cant separate life being created from life evolving, that is where your lack of understanding is clear.
I make NO CLAIMS as to how life was initiated.
your postition is biased because you are trying to find a question that fits your answer. you already know the answer you are looking for- god did it.

i say "i dont know" and since we cant observe or make empirical measurments about the creation of life it is a pointless argument.

Evlution on the otherhand has numerous FACTS that we can observe. you even set forth a criteria to prove it, the missing link.

the same cannot be said for creation.

 

[This_person]

you cant separate life being created from life evolving, that is where your lack of understanding is clear.

Since when did evolution have anything to do with proving where life came from? Do you even have any idea what you're arguing against?

Ah, the additional irony

I make NO CLAIMS as to how life was initiated.
your postition is biased because you are trying to find a question that fits your answer. you already know the answer you are looking for- god did it.

i say "i dont know" and since we cant observe or make empirical measurments about the creation of life it is a pointless argument.

Evlution on the otherhand has numerous FACTS that we can observe. you even set forth a criteria to prove it, the missing link.

the same cannot be said for creation.

Well, they're not "facts", they're theories, hypothesis, potential "facts". We have observed some things which we claim are proof of evolution, because (like I already know God did it) we already decided that was the answer.

And, while the missing like (which is called that because it's still, uh, MISSING) may provide clues to a common ancestor to humans and apes, it still does not provide the common ancestor before that, and before that. Thus, the whole "theory" concept.

I will agree with you, though. It's a pointless argument to have when both sides cannot be open minded. I'm open minded enough to say if you can show me non-created life on another planet, or show me the process by which wet rock can become life on this planet (and make it happen, and make that one cell evolve into the at least trillions of different life forms already known to exist or have existed), then I may buy a non-creationist, non-intelligent design of an answer. You have stated you flatly refuse to buy creation as a potential answer. The discussion becomes pointless when both sides are not open minded.

 

[wxtornado]

Ah, the additional irony.

He's saying that YOU (yourself) can't separate the two. Evolution is not abiogenesis. How many different ways can we say it - that's why it looks like you're being obtuse on purpose.