Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

[durangodawood]

Observation is essential in science.

Not direct observation.

There's many ways to reason from current observations and knowledge to arrive at strong conclusions about what happened in the past.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are many aspects to that definition; but a key aspect is the ability to procreate.

Plenty of living things, either through defect or trauma, lose or never gain the ability to procreate.

Can you draw a distinction between procreation and a chemical reaction?

Probably not; can you?

Do you believe that life is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

What's "life," again?

 

[HARK!]

Not direct observation.

There has been no observation of macroevolution.

There's many ways to reason from current observations and knowledge to arrive at strong conclusions about what happened in the past.

Speculation.

 

[durangodawood]

....Speculation.

So the existence of, say, Napoleon or Einstein = speculation? Or Jesus?

I cannot observe them. Nor can anyone.

 

[HARK!]

Probably not; can you?

Self awareness might be a good place to start. Can you express the chemical reaction that takes place to yield self awareness?

 

[HARK!]

So the existence of, say, Napoleon or Einstein = speculation? Or Jesus?

I cannot observe them. Nor can anyone.

Those people have been observed. Macroevolution has not.

 

[Gene2memE]

So in the end, what is the real difference?

That is the real difference. I explained it.

To simplify it further would run perilously close to sarcasm or parody, but here goes.

Spontaneous generation: Not first life. Babies made from different kinds of stuff. No mommys or daddys. Babies just mini versions of big ones. Babies all creatures already seen in nature.

Abiogenesis: First life. Very simple. Not baby, just chemistry that copies self good, is stable, sealed from environment, responds to stuff. Made from long chains of chemicals. Is last part of long, natural process with non life long chains of chemicals becoming better at copying. Is start of new, long natural processe.

It appears that abiogenesis is merely a later revision of spontaneous generation.

Well, it doesn't. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between the two doesn't make the latter the former, or invalidate a single piece of research in the field.

Your failure to understand an idea isn't a defeater for that idea.

 

[JMV]

Who you calling a scoofer?

Correct word is scoffer, much like a proper way of asking is "who are you calling." Not that spelling is important, that is if you understood i'm not calling anyone scoffer for there is but One Judge. I was merely preaching about He who discerns the thoughts knowing their innermost intentions, who has revealed all have scoffed. As to your question, all who chooses to remain a scoffer.

 

[durangodawood]

Those people have been observed. Macroevolution has not.

Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.

 

[HARK!]

That is the real difference. I explained it.

To simplify it further would run perilously close to sarcasm or parody, but here goes.

Spontaneous generation: Not first life. Babies made from different kinds of stuff. No mommys or daddys. Babies just mini versions of big ones. Babies all creatures already seen in nature.

Abiogenesis: First life. Very simple. Not baby, just chemistry that copies self good, is stable, sealed from environment, responds to stuff. Made from long chains of chemicals. Is last part of long, natural process with non life long chains of chemicals becoming better at copying. Is start of new, long natural processe.

Both claim that life can pop out of a rock. The difference is subtle.

 

[HARK!]

Well, it doesn't. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between the two doesn't make the latter the former, or invalidate a single piece of research in the field.

Your failure to understand an idea isn't a defeater for that idea.

I understand the difference. The difference is negligible.

 

[HARK!]

Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.

The existence of these people is well documented. There is no credible documentation for the observation of macroevolution, nor rainbow unicorns for that matter.

 

[durangodawood]

The existence of these people is well documented. There is no credible documentation for the observation of macroevolution, nor rainbow unicorns for that matter.

You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.

 

[HARK!]

You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.

You introduced a subject of history to make a point. However, let's not conflate history with science.

 

[durangodawood]

You introduced a subject of history to make a point. However, let's not conflate history with science.

The attitude toward a factual past is identical.

Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.

 

[HARK!]

The attitude toward a factual past is identical.

Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.

Macroevolution has not been established as fact.

 

[durangodawood]

Macroevolution has not been established as fact.

Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?

 

[HARK!]

Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?

There has been no observation of macroevolution. We covered this already.

 

[durangodawood]

There has been no observation of macroevolution. We covered this already.

What can we observe in the past? I cant think of anything. I think your standard is bogus. I know scientists do too.

 

[HARK!]

What can we observe in the past? I cant think of anything. I think your standard is bogus. I know scientists do too.

Here is the quote which was the preamble to this facet of this discussion:

Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

If you can find a scientist to refute this statement; I'll consider the credibility of your statement.