Can you explain this to me? Pt2 Abiogenesis

Smidlee · #41 16th July 2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by random_guy

Basically, you do throw your hands in the air and say "God did it". By saying, don't research this area, you're giving up.

Yet all I hear is "evolution (nature) did it". How is that any different? Yes after awhile any fruitless science should be abandon. (I'm not anti-science as it's one of my favorite subjects even though I'm not a scientist)The abiogenesis has gotten worst since Urey-Miller experiment and creationist are not the only one who think so.
While I believe, like many christian before Darwin, you can't put God into the tubetube you can still find his finderprints in his creation.
As far how many creationist is in science may be hard to tell but I've read many atheist claim most scientist are atheist and while those who claim to have faith doesn't really pracitice it. I can easily see how abiogenesis/evolution is very important to the athiest.

notto · #42 16th July 2006, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Smidlee

Yet all I hear is "evolution (nature) did it".

Then you're not reading the references provided in the footnotes. To suggest that this is 'all you hear' is dishonest.

How is that any different?

Referenes to peer reviewed and repeatable research that use observable physical mechanisms to describe observations.

random_guy · #43 16th July 2006, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Smidlee

Yet all I hear is "evolution (nature) did it". How is that any different? Yes after awhile any fruitless science should be abandon. (I'm not anti-science as it's one of my favorite subjects even though I'm not a scientist)The abiogenesis has gotten worst since Urey-Miller experiment and creationist are not the only one who think so.
While I believe, like many christian before Darwin, you can't put God into the tubetube you can still find his finderprints in his creation.
As far how many creationist is in science may be hard to tell but I've read many atheist claim most scientist are atheist and while those who claim to have faith doesn't really pracitice it. I can easily see how abiogenesis/evolution is very important to the athiest.

Okay, let's see you back up your statements.

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/bi...d%20plants.pdf

Here is an indepth review of origins and evolution of land plants. Please show me how this amounts to, "Evolution did it" when there are 84 of papers cited that talk about the fossils found and analyzed, the cladistic research performed, sediment studies of oxygen content, etc... I think you may think you are not anti-science, but from your statements, you profess anti-science stances. Of course, prove me wrong by showing how all these studies are nothing more than scientists saying, "Evolution did it" with nothing to back it up like how Creationists go "God did it".

Also, you skirted my question about how discovering self catalyzing RNA is equivalent to cold fusion. I think the reason is because you know your analogy is wrong.

Notto:

It's actually pretty amazing that if I know I'm not around to answer a post, someone will always be able to step in and answer exactly how I planned. That's one great thing about the science accepting side, our side is very consistent, especially when you compare it to the other side of pre-split gravity and veggie T-Rexes.

Smidlee · #44 16th July 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by random_guy

Okay, let's see you back up your statements.

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/bi...d%20plants.pdf

It very obvious this writer automaticly assume "evolution did it" . "Evolution did it" clearly implied and doesn't really explain how it actually did. The facts are interpreted according to one's worldview
Fossil record can also be used against Darwinism as been noted many times by both creationist and evolutionists.
This can just as easily point to a common designer. The thing is Paley's main argument for design has never been refuted. It's true Paley made some bad points which could easily be corrected but his over all argument still stands especially in molecular biology. Darwinism was at most an alternative but didn't refute design. Just because someone can imaged something doesn't make it true.

Here is an indepth review of origins and evolution of land plants. Please show me how this amounts to, "Evolution did it" when there are 84 of papers cited that talk about the fossils found and analyzed, the cladistic research performed, sediment studies of oxygen content, etc... I think you may think you are not anti-science, but from your statements, you profess anti-science stances. Of course, prove me wrong by showing how all these studies are nothing more than scientists saying, "Evolution did it" with nothing to back it up like how Creationists go "God did it".

In another word if someone disagrees with you interpretion of the facts they must be anti-science. Doesn't some YEC hint the exact same thing that if TE doesn't agree with their interpretion of Genesis then they are anti-bible. If anything I'm anti-Darwinism.

Also, you skirted my question about how discovering self catalyzing RNA is equivalent to cold fusion. I think the reason is because you know your analogy is wrong.

Catalyzing RNA is still a long way from build a cell. It been known for a while now that RNA theory has serious problems itself. They are just grabbing straw and making strawmen.

shernren · #45 16th July 2006, 11:06 PM

It been known for a while now that RNA theory has serious problems itself.

I expect that you have a credible source for this?

random_guy · #46 16th July 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Smidlee

It very obvious this writer automaticly assume "evolution did it" . "Evolution did it" clearly implied and doesn't really explain how it actually did. The facts are interpreted according to one's worldview
Fossil record can also be used against Darwinism as been noted many times by both creationist and evolutionists.
This can just as easily point to a common designer. The thing is Paley's main argument for design has never been refuted. It's true Paley made some bad points which could easily be corrected but his over all argument still stands especially in molecular biology. Darwinism was at most an alternative but didn't refute design. Just because someone can imaged something doesn't make it true. In another word if someone disagrees with you interpretion of the facts they must be anti-science. Doesn't some YEC hint the exact same thing that if TE doesn't agree with their interpretion of Genesis then they are anti-bible. If anything I'm anti-Darwinism.

You're saying that all scientists do is say "evolution did it" like how we say Creationists say "God did it". However, according to the review, we also collect evidence, test many different hypothesis in laboratories, and go through many different theories. How is this equivalent to saying, "Evolution did it" and leaving at that? Isn't funny how you continue to think all scientists do is utter a phrase when, in reality, hundreds of thousands of hours of research goes into every theory? Sure doesn't sound like uttering, "evolution did it". Sounds like real scientific research, the same thing that you're railing on that gives you an anti-science stance.

Catalyzing RNA is still a long way from build a cell. It been known for a while now that RNA theory has serious problems itself. They are just grabbing straw and making strawmen.

I'm not saying you're anti-science because you don't agree with my views, I'm saying you're anti-science because you continue to make statements like this. Science doesn't instantly get to the answer. The whole point behind finding self catalyzing RNA is discovering that, in fact, RNA can self catalyze. This opens up new areas for research. I also noticed you still skirted my question. Why is the discovery of self catalyzing RNA similar to cold fusion? The cold fusion people said they created cold fusion in a lab, which was unreproducible. The researchers behind the RNA stuff said they discovered that RNA can self catalyze, which was reproducible in a lab. No one is saying that the RNA is alive. No one is saying they made the real cell from the RNA. What strawman are they making?

From your statements, it becomes clear that you either don't understand how science works, or you're anti-science (especially when the science disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible). Sure sounds like you're arguing that since they didn't create life from the self catalyzing RNA, abiogenesis is wrong. I think this is called argument from ignorance.