Attn, Evolutionists: Plug it in
J McCoy
You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
Observations.
Hypothesis.
Observation and repetition.
Theory.
More observation and repetition.
After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
J McCoy
observa
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
Abiogenesis, at this time, is both a theory, and a hypothesis. Structure
has been detected in clays, and RNA is hypothesised as a precursor
(biologists correct me if using the wrong word) of DNA. All of these are
subject to testing. There are multiple theories, and hypotheses of
abiogenesis, and all are subject to test. That is science. The more tests
there are, the more we learn. (Something you seem incapable of Mr McCoy).
Alan Jeffery
>
> Observations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Observation and repetition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Theory.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More observation and repetition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J McCoy
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003
Eric Gill
@posting.google.com:
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
Ghadiri Group. Nanotechnology. Results that make products that earn money
by getting results.
Game, set and match.
<snip>
Thomas H. Faller
Does this have anything to do with the "Sex and Gravity" thread?
Tom Faller
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>
> Observations.
Cells are made of chemicals.
All life shares the same
basic genetic and physical makeup.
The evolution hypothesis has
all life coming from a common
ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
which are not needed here).
This common ancestor
would be a primitive.
single celled organism
> Hypothesis.
That common ancestor cell has a naturalistic
origin based in chemistry.
> Observation and repetition.
Chemical components of cells
such as amino acids, ATP, RNA,
lipids can be made abiotically.
RNA, and proteins have catalytic
properties and there are simple
known self-replicators.
> Theory.
That common ancestor cell is the descendant of self-replicating
molecules.
> More observation and repetition.
Search http://www.pnas.org for example for
papers that have search hits with "RNA world"
or "self-replicating" .....
> After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
A law is just a darn good theory.
Lucas Bachmann
> J McCoy
>
Dave Oldridge
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
Why do you lie? What hypothesis about the molecular origin of life have
you seen that is not scientific? What percentage of the large number of
extant hypotheses is unscientific? Why are they unscientific?
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
They are not falsehoods just because you slander the scientists who devise
these hypotheses as liars. YOU are the liar here. Repent, for your end
is nigh.
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
I thought we submitted YOUR mythical ideas to it (which are mostly you
mythical ideas about yourself, as you have no real theological depth).
And guess what? They proved that you are a fake Christian with delusions
of piety. It's time you got off the case of honest scientists you don't
even know and got on your own!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
AC
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
The study of how organic molecules self-replicating molecules could come
about. How is that unscientific? Please be specific.
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>
> Observations.
We observe that molecules under certain conditions can organize into
self-replicating units.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hypothesis.
That, under the right conditions, organic molecules will become
self-replicating.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Observation and repetition.
These experiments have been repeated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Theory.
That life began on Earth via self-replicating organic molecules.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More observation and repetition.
As has been pointed out, these experiments have been confirmed. Organic
molecules necessary to life can be produced.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
Why would a theory become a law?
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Lane Lewis
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>
Since evolution says nothing about abiogenesis are you not asking the wrong
people.
But since you asked, one idea is that the first cells formed in microscopic
holes in rocks that ocean water could flow into. Once the proper outer
casing and self replicating interior were formed the cell could start
something like mitosis.
Now what's not scientific about that.
Lane
H,R.Gruemm
Anybody who thinks that laws come last (and after theories) doesn't
understand the meaning of those words in science. Thus every time
McCoy repeats this question, he just confirms his ignorance.
The law of gravity came before the theory of gravity (GR) and is an
approximate consequence of the theory.
The ideal gas laws (Boyle-Mariotte-Gay-Lussac) came before the kinetic
theory of gases and are an approximate consequence of the theory. Etc.
HRG.
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>
> Abiogenesis, at this time, is both a theory, and a hypothesis. Structure
> has been detected in clays, and RNA is hypothesised as a precursor
> (biologists correct me if using the wrong word) of DNA. All of these are
> subject to testing. There are multiple theories, and hypotheses of
> abiogenesis, and all are subject to test. That is science. The more tests
> there are, the more we learn. (Something you seem incapable of Mr McCoy).
Nice, but noticed that you failed to show how, and you could have
below. YOu've just given your opinion here, and that doesn't count.
J McCoy
J McCoy
> J McCoy wrote:
> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> >
> > Observations.
>
> Cells are made of chemicals.
> All life shares the same
> basic genetic and physical makeup.
> The evolution hypothesis has
> all life coming from a common
> ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
> which are not needed here).
> This common ancestor
> would be a primitive.
> single celled organism
Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hypothesis.
>
> That common ancestor cell has a naturalistic
> origin based in chemistry.
>
Yes, but based on what observation.
>
>
> > Observation and repetition.
>
> Chemical components of cells
> such as amino acids, ATP, RNA,
> lipids can be made abiotically.
Did you observe them coming together to form life?
>
>
> RNA, and proteins have catalytic
> properties and there are simple
> known self-replicators.
>
>
>
> > Theory.
>
> That common ancestor cell is the descendant of self-replicating
> molecules.
Based on what observation? Did you see abiogenesis happen?
>
> > More observation and repetition.
>
> Search http://www.pnas.org for example for
> papers that have search hits with "RNA world"
> or "self-replicating" .....
Can everyone see abiogenesis happen?
>
> > After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
>
> A law is just a darn good theory.
Looks like you've failed.
J McCoy
My prediction of your failure came to pass.
>
> Lucas Bachmann
>
>
>
> > J McCoy
> >
J McCoy
Looks like Lucas failed, and you refused to plug in the right answers.
Your hostility doesn't prove anything except you're in anquish that
you can't prove abiogenesis to be true. You can produce no real
observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea of
"honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts that
support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to maintain
such falsehoods.
J McCoy
Dave Oldridge
> Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9354E34F8AEFE...@142.77.1.194>...
>> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in news:3f355ee.0304051521.66e47ae5
>> @posting.google.com:
>>
>> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is
>> > not?
>>
>> Why do you lie? What hypothesis about the molecular origin of life
>> have you seen that is not scientific? What percentage of the large
>> number of extant hypotheses is unscientific? Why are they
>> unscientific?
>>
>> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
>>
>> They are not falsehoods just because you slander the scientists who
>> devise these hypotheses as liars. YOU are the liar here. Repent,
>> for your end is nigh.
>>
>> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
>> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>>
>> I thought we submitted YOUR mythical ideas to it (which are mostly
>> you mythical ideas about yourself, as you have no real theological
>> depth).
>>
>> And guess what? They proved that you are a fake Christian with
>> delusions of piety. It's time you got off the case of honest
>> scientists you don't even know and got on your own!
>
>
>
> Looks like Lucas failed, and you refused to plug in the right answers.
Looks like Lucas didn't play your silly game.
> Your hostility doesn't prove anything except you're in anquish that
> you can't prove abiogenesis to be true. You can produce no real
I could care less if it's true. You haven't proved it false, and you
haven't shown any element of these hypotheses to be physically impossible.
Moreover, we can produce strong evidence that this planet was once in a
condition where living organisms would have been physically impossible.
Same for the universe at large. Therefore we can rigorously deduce that,
like time itself, life has a beginning. Thus hypotheses about the nature
of that beginning have the possibility of being scientific, even if we
cannot yet choose which (if any) of them are correct.
> observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
Don't need to, moron.
> because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
You do not know this and have yet to prove this false claim. Your claim
that the concept is fraudulent is false witness, done in God's name,
making you a blasphemer in addition to being a liar. Don't like the heat,
then repent yourself out of the kitchen, sinner.
> Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea of
No it's not. It's a straightforward application of the teachings of Jesus
Christ. Do you know of any HIGHER authority in Christianity?
> "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts that
> support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to maintain
> such falsehoods.
And even more delusional of you to make up requirements for science that
are non-existent and then accuse those who fail to meet those phony
requirements of fraud. Stop the sin or go to hell with it. You wonder
why I excommunicate you? I can't stand the sight of your lies in God's
name, blasphemer!
You need to GET some religion before you even START to think about handing
around whatever it is you're calling religion.
boikat
news:<3E8F7F51...@yahoo.com>...
> > J McCoy wrote:
> > > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> > >
> > > Observations.
> >
> > Cells are made of chemicals.
> > All life shares the same
> > basic genetic and physical makeup.
> > The evolution hypothesis has
> > all life coming from a common
> > ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
> > which are not needed here).
> > This common ancestor
> > would be a primitive.
> > single celled organism
>
> Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
One does not have to directly observ an event if the data suggests an event
has occured, but one may use the data available to construct a hypothesis,
and develope tests for the hypothesis.
Boikat
Lenny Flank
> "observa" <obs...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<lNJja.52062$jE3.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> >
> > Abiogenesis, at this time, is both a theory, and a hypothesis. Structure
> > has been detected in clays, and RNA is hypothesised as a precursor
> > (biologists correct me if using the wrong word) of DNA. All of these are
> > subject to testing. There are multiple theories, and hypotheses of
> > abiogenesis, and all are subject to test. That is science. The more tests
> > there are, the more we learn. (Something you seem incapable of Mr McCoy).
>
> Nice, but noticed that you failed to show how, and you could have
> below. YOu've just given your opinion here, and that doesn't count.
Speaking of which, would you mind telling all of us what the
scientific theory of creation is, and how it can be tested using the
scientific method?
And if you won't tell us, would you mind telling all of us WHY you
won't tell us?
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
AC
>> J McCoy wrote:
>> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
>> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
>> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
>> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>> >
>> > Observations.
>>
>> Cells are made of chemicals.
>> All life shares the same
>> basic genetic and physical makeup.
>> The evolution hypothesis has
>> all life coming from a common
>> ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
>> which are not needed here).
>> This common ancestor
>> would be a primitive.
>> single celled organism
>
> Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
Can I apply this to God, Mr. McCoy? Did you see God make anything? For
that matter, have you actually seen God at all?
Beyond that, researchers have no illusions that even if an abiogenesis event
is discovered, it will be the same as the one that first lead to life on
Earth. In fact, abiogenesis may actually be occuring now, but because such
molecules would form in a world filled with life that has 3 billion years to
develop ways of chowing down on organic material, such molecules would
likely be wiped out before anything more could occur.
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>Lucas Bachmann <lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E8F7F51...@yahoo.com>...
>> J McCoy wrote:
>> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
>> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
>> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
>> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>> >
>> > Observations.
>>
>> Cells are made of chemicals.
>> All life shares the same
>> basic genetic and physical makeup.
>> The evolution hypothesis has
>> all life coming from a common
>> ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
>> which are not needed here).
>> This common ancestor
>> would be a primitive.
>> single celled organism
>
>Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
John, have you ever OBSERVED a tree growing? I don't mean
over a week, or a month, but at this instant.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > Lucas Bachmann <lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<3E8F7F51...@yahoo.com>...
> > > J McCoy wrote:
> > > > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > > > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > > > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > > > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> > > >
> > > > Observations.
> > >
> > > Cells are made of chemicals.
> > > All life shares the same
> > > basic genetic and physical makeup.
> > > The evolution hypothesis has
> > > all life coming from a common
> > > ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
> > > which are not needed here).
> > > This common ancestor
> > > would be a primitive.
> > > single celled organism
> >
> > Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
>
> One does not have to directly observ an event if the data suggests an event
> has occured, but one may use the data available to construct a hypothesis,
> and develope tests for the hypothesis.
What data is this? You do need to directly observe it and you do need
to test it. And you need to repeat it. None of these criteria fit
singularities of which abiogenesi is one of them.
J McCoy
boikat
Data: At one point in time, there was no life on earth as evident in
sedimentary rocks, then there is evidence of life.
> You do need to directly observe it and you do need
> to test it.
All that needs to be tested is the hypothesis, and various components of the
hypothesis, generated to explain the observed data
> And you need to repeat it.
Many aspects of abiogenisis has been tested, repetedly, with positive
results, such as spontainious generation of organic molecules from simple
gases.
> None of these criteria fit
> singularities of which abiogenesi is one of them.
Wrong, as usual..
Boikat
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
> Lucas Bachmann <lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E8F7F51...@yahoo.com>...
>
>>J McCoy wrote:
>>
>
>
> Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
>
If I had observed it there would be no need for a hypothesis.
Since no one observed it - a hypothesis is needed to figure
out what happened. Why did you make a hypothesis blank if
you didn't want one.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hypothesis.
>>
>>That common ancestor cell has a naturalistic
>>origin based in chemistry.
>>
>
> Yes, but based on what observation.
Everything before and after that event
can be understood naturalistically.
Solar system formation is understood
naturalistically. Chemicals are
understood natualistically.
Cells are understood naturalistically.
>
>>
>>>Observation and repetition.
>>
>>Chemical components of cells
>>such as amino acids, ATP, RNA,
>>lipids can be made abiotically.
>
>
> Did you observe them coming together to form life?
>
Hey now. You wanted observations that lead to my
theory. If my theory is that a cell is the result
of chemistry and I can make pieces of my cell
with chemistry, then that is one step closer
to making cells. If cell components could
not be made abiotically then that is a blow
to the theory cells can be made abiotically.
Chemicals -> Cell components -> Cell -> Lifeforms
I've got chemicals, I can make cell components,
and with the science behind evolution I got cell
to all lifeforms, all that's left is getting the components
together for the cell.
>
>
>
>>
>>RNA, and proteins have catalytic
>>properties and there are simple
>>known self-replicators.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Theory.
>>
>>That common ancestor cell is the descendant of self-replicating
>>molecules.
>
>
> Based on what observation?
Those things I put in the observation blank.
>Did you see abiogenesis happen?
Again it's a theory. Why did you make a theory blank
if you don't want a theory?
>
>
>
>>>More observation and repetition.
>>
>>Search http://www.pnas.org for example for
>>papers that have search hits with "RNA world"
>>or "self-replicating" .....
>
>
> Can everyone see abiogenesis happen?
>
>
When it happens again, yes.
>
>
>>>After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
>>
>>A law is just a darn good theory.
>
>
>
> Looks like you've failed.
>
What I would like to see from someone who can calculate the odds
of abiogenesis to state the odds of every single step, since
the seem to know how to do it if they can calculate odds.
Lucas Bachmann
Noctiluca
> > J McCoy wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
>
<snip>
> Yes, but based on what observation.
> >
> >
<snip>
> Did you observe them coming together to form life?
>
<snip>
> Based on what observation? Did you see abiogenesis happen?
>
<snip>
> Can everyone see abiogenesis happen?
<snip>
> Looks like you've failed.
>
> J McCoy
>
> My prediction of your failure came to pass.
>
These are childishly pathetic responses, even for someone with such
low standards as yourself. You issue a challenge, the challenge is
accepted and met with a thoughtful and reasonable post, and you
respond with anserine repetition of an argument most 10 year olds
could see through.
As drawing an analogy for McCoy's behavior seems to be trendy right
now let me offer one that stikes me. Long ago I saw a short skit or
story on some variety show in which an adulterous husband is caught in
the act by his wife. As the wife showers him with justified rage and
inquiry the rapscallion (always wanted to use that word) very calmly
and with a straight face denies everything that his wife has just
seen. He denies the existence of the mistress who happens to be
dressing right in front of the wife. He denies the occurrence of sex
or even nudity as he methodically dons his clothes. He even denies
that the wife has actually encountered him at all, suggesting as he
walks out the front door that she has imagined everything. The wife
stands stunned in the doorway, either dumbfounded at her husband's
audacity, or actually beginning to question her grip on reality.
The stone-faced resolve required for this kind of "implausible
deniability" tactic is almost admirable in it's own twisted way, I
suppose.
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
>
> Looks like Lucas failed, and you refused to plug in the right answers.
> Your hostility doesn't prove anything except you're in anquish that
> you can't prove abiogenesis to be true. You can produce no real
> observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
> because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
> Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea of
> "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts that
> support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to maintain
> such falsehoods.
>
> J McCoy
>
Obsevation and repetition
Emergence of a dual-catalytic RNA with metal-specific cleavage and
ligase activities: The spandrels of RNA evolution
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/173
A self-replicating ligase ribozyme
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/20/12733
Genetic code origins: tRNAs older than their synthetases?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11295
Testing ancient RNA-protein interactions
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/11067
The universal ancestor
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854
Evolutionary self-organization of cell-free genetic coding
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/9185
Importance of compartment formation for a self-encoding system
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/11/7514
Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich
surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and
geological clues
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3479
Compositional genomes: Prebiotic information transfer in mutually
catalytic noncovalent assemblies
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/8/4112
Chemical interactions between amino acid and RNA: multiplicity of the
levels of specificity explains origin of the genetic code.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12536275&dopt=Abstract
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions
from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from
prokaryotes to nucleated cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12594918&dopt=Abstract
Montmorillonite catalysis of 30-50 mer oligonucleotides: laboratory
demonstration of potential steps in the origin of the RNA world.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12458736&dopt=Abstract
Interaction of RNA with phospholipid membrane
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12068636&dopt=Abstract
Eutectic phases in ice facilitate nonenzymatic nucleic acid synthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12448990&dopt=Abstract
The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine
hydrothermal redox and pH front.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11541234&dopt=Abstract
Role of lipid membrane-nucleic acid interactions, DNA-membrane contacts
and metal (II) cations in origination of initial cells and in evolution
of prokaryotes to eukaryotes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12401569&dopt=Abstract
Creation of genetic information by DNA polymerase of the thermophilic
bacterium Thermus thermophilus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9753734&dopt=Abstract
Self-organization of genetic coding.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8412227&dopt=Abstract
On the appearance of function and organisation in the origin of life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9299298&dopt=Abstract
That's enough to make a point.
Lucas Bachmann
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
>
> My prediction of your failure came to pass.
>
>J McCoy
Do you have any evidence of a prediction of failure?
Did you post it earlier? Are there any witnesses
of this prediction before the "fact?"
Were you predicting my specific failure
or just that someone would fail?
Lucas Bachmann
Frank J
As you know, JM wants someone to demonstrate abiogenesis in real-time,
before he acknowledges that it is scientific. Of course, we cannot yet
rule out that abiogenesis is a once-in-a-universe, or even a
once-in-10^40000-universes, phenomenon (although several lines of
evidence suggest that it is much more common). But JM, who apparently
denies common descent, automatically implies that abiogenesis occurred
~billions of times on earth alone. I believe that the onus is on him
to demonstrate abiogenesis in real-time, before speculating on what is
or isn't scientific.
Skitter...@shadowwatch.org
On 6-Apr-2003, mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
> Path:
> twister.neo.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!router1.news.adelphia.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy)
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Subject: Re: Attn, Evolutionists: Plug it in
> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:04:08 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Lines: 40
> Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> References: <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> <Xns9354E34F8AEFE...@142.77.1.194>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1049627048 87812 128.100.83.246 (6 Apr 2003
> 11:04:08 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:04:08 +0000 (UTC)
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1166950
Why do you insist on acting as if scientific inquiry, as it is practiced by
professionals (who are adults), should be the same as the overly simplified,
truncated, outline of scientific method used to explain the very basics of
science to 7th graders? You must, at some point, have come to realize that
there is a difference in the actual way in which professionals conduct their
research and the way some teachers teach "science" to children. There has
to be this difference; children (perhaps with a few very rare exceptions)
are not capable of having very complex ideas explained to them with much
retention. It is better to ground them in the basics and then teach them
more advanced material. Why do persist in acting as if your knowledge is
limited to middle school text books? You can't seriously not understand how
science is done in the real world. Why do this? You asked a question-and
it was answered (very well, particularly by Lane). Why act as if it wasn't?
I'm perplexed.
Skitter the Cat
H,R.Gruemm
Worse than that, has McCoy ever *directly* observed a tree ? He
inferred the existence of a tree from direct observations of (real or
virtual) photons emitted by said tree.
HRG.
J McCoy
That's sad. So sad. I just don't see the correlation. Asking a
proponent of abiogenesis to explain how his ideas fits into the
scientific method isn't a game. What you've written is just a cop-out
excuse. In reality, you can't demonstrate nor prove that abiogenesis
is scientific. I guess we should lower Darwin's evolutionary flag to
half staff.
>
> > Your hostility doesn't prove anything except you're in anquish that
> > you can't prove abiogenesis to be true. You can produce no real
>
> I could care less if it's true. You haven't proved it false,
That's moronic. I don't have to prove it false. If abiogenesis is
listed in the textbooks and you're defending it, then you must have
some convincing arguments. I don't see how one engages in battle and
then jump ship. Somewhat similar to what is happening in Iraq right
now. The creationists come into talk.origins with their arguments, and
the evolutionists drops his guns and says you prove abiogenesis wrong
for me. That's it. See you later. If you're going to have that
mentality, why even bother to respond?
and you
> haven't shown any element of these hypotheses to be physically impossible.
Science does sit around waiting for the seemingly impossible to
happen. The fact is, if it doesn't happen frequently and repeatly, it
isn't science.
> Moreover, we can produce strong evidence that this planet was once in a
> condition where living organisms would have been physically impossible.
No you can't.Your assumption is that lower geologic strata equals
time. That's false logic. The fact is, that layer may have been always
covered by upper layering.
> Same for the universe at large. Therefore we can rigorously deduce that,
> like time itself, life has a beginning. Thus hypotheses about the nature
> of that beginning have the possibility of being scientific, even if we
> cannot yet choose which (if any) of them are correct.
If life had a beginning, why is it that the earliest ancestors of dogs
had all the traits that the descendent dogs had? Is it because God
created dogs with a huge gene pool in the begginning? Why, you'd think
if evolution were the case, and true, then our ancestor dogs would
have a lower gene pool and gradually increase in gene pool as time
goes on. So that totally refutes the evolution concept. In fact, as
time goes on and the gene pool gets spread thin, and species of dogs
separate, inbreeding occurs. In humans we see genetic defects
accumulate in this way.
>
> > observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
>
> Don't need to, moron.
Then don't call yourself scientific. You're just a wanna-be scientist
who doesn't understand the method.
>
> > because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
>
> You do not know this and have yet to prove this false claim.
I do know this with such confidence that I have absolutely no doubt as
to the fact that abiogenesis can't take place. Because, if abiogenesis
does and can take place, then human beings with their accumulated
knowledge could create life in a laboratory. Since this can't be done
with present knowledge, I have strong doubts that nature could do it
by itself. I just don't have the sense of faith in it as you do.
Your claim
> that the concept is fraudulent is false witness, done in God's name,
> making you a blasphemer in addition to being a liar. Don't like the heat,
> then repent yourself out of the kitchen, sinner.
First you call me moron? Now you're speaking on behalf of God? I
don't know where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you're
just an atheist trying to stir up trouble in support of your fledgling
abiogenesis theory.
>
> > Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea of
>
> No it's not. It's a straightforward application of the teachings of Jesus
> Christ. Do you know of any HIGHER authority in Christianity?
You mean selective application of the teachings of Jesus. Let's see,
you claim that men came from monkeys, right? So, when God removed a
rib from the monkey, the monkey said, "Ook,ook, uhah,ook, Eve." To be
interpreted to mean, "Your name is Eve because you're the mother of
all living."
> > "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts that
> > support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to maintain
> > such falsehoods.
>
> And even more delusional of you to make up requirements for science that
> are non-existent
Science is a requirement. The definition of science is that it is a
method. And the method has already been explained to you.
and then accuse those who fail to meet those phony
> requirements of fraud. Stop the sin or go to hell with it. You wonder
> why I excommunicate you? I can't stand the sight of your lies in God's
> name, blasphemer!
Now I know you're false. You're taking on the words written from movie
scripts of atheists who are trying to make Christians look bad. I
don't know of one of the hundreds of Christians that I've met over
time who have EVER called someone a "blasphemer."
>
> You need to GET some religion before you even START to think about handing
> around whatever it is you're calling religion.
You had better start telling the truth. You should know the truth as
the truth can set you free.
J McCoy
J McCoy
Be weary of all this nonsense. None of this information adds up. The
proof is in the pudding. If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney
stack of information claims that is could occur, then a lab at Harvard
could create instant life. But it doesn't work that way and what we
see here is smoke and mirrors.
I hope you evolutionists are getting terribly discouraged at life
right now. Be happy in spite of your failure to prove abiogenesis as
fact. We live in a good country with no Saddam Husseins dictating over
you.
J McCoy
Grinder
> Be weary of all this nonsense. None of this information adds
up. The
> proof is in the pudding.
You didn't look at _any_ of those references, did you?
> If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney
> stack of information claims that is could occur, then a lab
at Harvard
> could create instant life. But it doesn't work that way and
what we
> see here is smoke and mirrors.
I know little more about abiogenesis than it's dictionary
definition. That, however, does not hinder my ability to spot
your argument as weak.
Put yourself into a 1930s state of mind:
If <nuclear fusion> could occur, as that phoney <Albert
Einstein>
claims [...], then a lab at <Los Alamos> could create <an
atomic bomb>.
Zoom forward 20 years, and laugh with an Horoshima survivor
about the ridiculous idea of an atomic bomb.
_________________
Are you a troll, or are you truly this f*cked up?
Dave Oldridge
Abiogenesis is MENTIONED in the textbooks, not as fact but as hypothesis.
I'm NOT defending it, just pointing out that, as hypothesis, it is
entirely scientific. YOU have yet to show that it is not. By your lights
I cannot insist that the world is round because, for me, having never
travelled all the way around it, the fact is an inference, not an
observation. Of course it was an inference for Eratosthenes, too.
> then jump ship. Somewhat similar to what is happening in Iraq right
> now. The creationists come into talk.origins with their arguments, and
> the evolutionists drops his guns and says you prove abiogenesis wrong
> for me. That's it. See you later. If you're going to have that
> mentality, why even bother to respond?
Hey, you're the one who is claiming that it's not science. It's science
as long as no part of the hypothesis is in direct conflict with
observation or with inferences correctly drawn from observation.
>> and you
>> haven't shown any element of these hypotheses to be physically
>> impossible.
>
> Science does sit around waiting for the seemingly impossible to
> happen. The fact is, if it doesn't happen frequently and repeatly, it
> isn't science.
Baloney! Now you are defining science to your own tastes.
>> Moreover, we can produce strong evidence that this planet was once in
>> a condition where living organisms would have been physically
>> impossible.
>
> No you can't.Your assumption is that lower geologic strata equals
> time. That's false logic. The fact is, that layer may have been always
> covered by upper layering.
Except the fossils in these layers demonstrate that they were at or near
the surface of the earth's crust and the isotope ratios demonstrate that
those at the bottom are, indeed, older.
>> Same for the universe at large. Therefore we can rigorously deduce
>> that, like time itself, life has a beginning. Thus hypotheses about
>> the nature of that beginning have the possibility of being
>> scientific, even if we cannot yet choose which (if any) of them are
>> correct.
> If life had a beginning, why is it that the earliest ancestors of dogs
> had all the traits that the descendent dogs had? Is it because God
They didn't. They were single cell organisms now long extinct. Later
they were fish. Then they were amphibia. Finally, they were reptiles,
then a host of small mammals that only evolved into the earliest canids
after the end of the cretaceous. You're inventing your data here.
> created dogs with a huge gene pool in the begginning? Why, you'd think
I don't theenk so senor. We see our dog breeds increasing in gene pool
all the time.
> if evolution were the case, and true, then our ancestor dogs would
> have a lower gene pool and gradually increase in gene pool as time
> goes on. So that totally refutes the evolution concept. In fact, as
> time goes on and the gene pool gets spread thin, and species of dogs
> separate, inbreeding occurs. In humans we see genetic defects
> accumulate in this way.
Wild wolves exhibit a much smaller gene pool than human-bred dogs. Why is
this?
>> > observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
>>
>> Don't need to, moron.
>
> Then don't call yourself scientific. You're just a wanna-be scientist
> who doesn't understand the method.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Look what's talking! You're such a laugh, McCoy! Anyway,
keep it up. You'll end up in hell for sure. That will save us the
trouble of having to rehabilitate you in purgatory...
>> > because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
>>
>> You do not know this and have yet to prove this false claim.
>
> I do know this with such confidence that I have absolutely no doubt as
> to the fact that abiogenesis can't take place. Because, if abiogenesis
Because of your faith in Ken Ham (or some other like-minded moron)?
> does and can take place, then human beings with their accumulated
> knowledge could create life in a laboratory. Since this can't be done
> with present knowledge, I have strong doubts that nature could do it
> by itself. I just don't have the sense of faith in it as you do.
We cannot reproduce, in the laboratory, the molecular evolution that took
place in a planet-wide space over several hundred millions of years. So
what? As for creating life in a lab. It is happening already to a
greater degree every year. Some people, a few months back actually built
a polio virus from parts ordered over the internet. Scary, that!
>> Your claim
>> that the concept is fraudulent is false witness, done in God's name,
>> making you a blasphemer in addition to being a liar. Don't like the
>> heat, then repent yourself out of the kitchen, sinner.
>
> First you call me moron?
Yes, you are a deliberate, self-made halfwit.
> Now you're speaking on behalf of God? I
> don't know where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you're
> just an atheist trying to stir up trouble in support of your fledgling
> abiogenesis theory.
Don't you wish! I'm no atheist and I don't HAVE an abiogenesis theory
that goes much beyond the claim that life on this planet has a beginning.
>> > Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea
>> > of
>> No it's not. It's a straightforward application of the teachings of
>> Jesus Christ. Do you know of any HIGHER authority in Christianity?
>
> You mean selective application of the teachings of Jesus. Let's see,
Nothing selective about it.
> you claim that men came from monkeys, right? So, when God removed a
No, I claim that the human physical body shares a common genetic ancestor
with chimps (who are apes, not monkeys). And yes, much earlier a common
genetic ancestor with monkeys. But this is very different from saying
that we "came from monkeys." Modern monkeys and apes are as far evolved
from those ancestors as WE are, only in different directions.
Man, theologically speaking begins with the human soul. And this is the
TRUE doctrine of creationism--that God imbues each human with a freshly-
created soul.
> rib from the monkey, the monkey said, "Ook,ook, uhah,ook, Eve." To be
> interpreted to mean, "Your name is Eve because you're the mother of
> all living."
Adam means literally mankind. Eve means womankind. And if you think God
actually picked a rib out of a male human to make the first woman, then
you're even worse at reading the Bible than you claim I am.
>> > "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts
>> > that support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to
>> > maintain such falsehoods.
>>
>> And even more delusional of you to make up requirements for science
>> that are non-existent
> Science is a requirement. The definition of science is that it is a
> method. And the method has already been explained to you.
I know the method. You are adding requirements to it.
>> and then accuse those who fail to meet those phony
>> requirements of fraud. Stop the sin or go to hell with it. You
>> wonder why I excommunicate you? I can't stand the sight of your lies
>> in God's name, blasphemer!
>
> Now I know you're false. You're taking on the words written from movie
> scripts of atheists who are trying to make Christians look bad. I
YOU are making Christians look bad? Are you an atheist shill? Maybe
THAT's what this is all about, eh?
> don't know of one of the hundreds of Christians that I've met over
> time who have EVER called someone a "blasphemer."
Well you don't meet THAT many blasphemers. Usually you meet ignorant
people who will, when presented with the facts, retract their support for
liars and move on. That's even decent Christian behaviour. But YOU are
sitting here demanding a right to keep lying in God's name. That's
blasphemy, son, right by the book! You know which book I mean, too.
You're just too used to thumping it and not used to obeying it.
>> You need to GET some religion before you even START to think about
>> handing around whatever it is you're calling religion.
>
> You had better start telling the truth. You should know the truth as
> the truth can set you free.
I do know the truth. That is what has got you in such a bad mood. Your
lies aren't working here. I am not fooled by your pretend holiness.
Dave Oldridge
In other words, hide your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence.
> I hope you evolutionists are getting terribly discouraged at life
> right now. Be happy in spite of your failure to prove abiogenesis as
> fact. We live in a good country with no Saddam Husseins dictating over
> you.
Looks like it's YOU who's discouraged with life. You're going to have an
increasingly rough time of it, regardless of the political success of your
stupid ideas.
No Saddam Husseins, just a bunch of wannabe Talibans like yourself trying
to grab the levers of power.
stew dean
> Lucas Bachmann <lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3E8F7F51...@yahoo.com>...
> > J McCoy wrote:
> > > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is not?
> > > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> > >
> > > Observations.
> >
> > Cells are made of chemicals.
> > All life shares the same
> > basic genetic and physical makeup.
> > The evolution hypothesis has
> > all life coming from a common
> > ancestor (for a multitude of reasons
> > which are not needed here).
> > This common ancestor
> > would be a primitive.
> > single celled organism
>
> Yes, but did you OBSERVE abiogenesis occurring?
>
Did you OBSERVE your own birth? How do you know it happened?
Stew Dean
Kermit
Have you observed ancient Rome?
Do you believe it existed?
--- Kermit
Kermit
In other words, big words scare you.
He provided links to repeatable experiments.
> The
> proof is in the pudding. If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney
> stack of information claims that is could occur, then a lab at Harvard
> could create instant life.But it doesn't work that way
Correct. It doesn't work that way. You make unreasonable demands;
people more honest and educated than you provide it, then you make
even more impossible demands. Nature didn't do it instanly; why should
you demand that we do?
> and what we
> see here is smoke and mirrors.
Ironically, you're right for once.
>
> I hope you evolutionists are getting terribly discouraged at life
> right now.
No, no; but thanks for your concern. These are excellent links, and
I'm keeping them for the next time you post the same silly questions.
> Be happy in spite of your failure to prove abiogenesis as
> fact.
Repeat after me: science does not prove theories. But this is pretty
good supporting evidence. Besides a congental inability to learn,
what's your problem with this?
> We live in a good country with no Saddam Husseins dictating over
> you.
No Torquemadas or Cromwells either :)
J McCoy
Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the atomic
bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But that bomb
was a complicated work of ingenuity. And this same ingenuity cannot
create life yet. Eventually it will be possible, given enough time,
but that only means that life, itself, is a work of ingenuity. Since
it is taking longer to create life, that means it is much more
complicated to create. Since nature cannot create an atomic bomb, I
doubt very much that it can create life on it's own.
J McCoy
Grinder
> So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it
clearly is not?
> You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK.
Let's
> subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see
if it
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney stack of
> information claims that is could occur, then a lab at
> Harvard could create instant life. But it doesn't work
> that way and what we see here is smoke and mirrors.
and:
> Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the
atomic
> bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But
that bomb
> was a complicated work of ingenuity. And this same ingenuity
cannot
> create life yet. Eventually it will be possible, given enough
time,
> but that only means that life, itself, is a work of
ingenuity. Since
> it is taking longer to create life, that means it is much
more
> complicated to create.
I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. From
the first two quotes, above, I've taken from you that
"abiogenesis is not scientific." Presumably, by this, you mean
that it is divine and cannot be (scientifically) studied -- it
is outside the realm of human observation.
Then, in the third quote, you affirm that "eventually it will
be possible" for that "same ingenuity" to create life. I'm
guessing the ingenuity you refer to is man's ingenuity in
creating an atomic bomb -- not the bomb itself. Incoherencies
aside, aren't you conflicting yourself?
> Since nature cannot create an atomic bomb, I
> doubt very much that it can create life on it's own.
Nature cannot create life on it's own? You might want to
consider reading your postings before you send them.
Dana Tweedy
> > Zoom forward 20 years, and laugh with an Horoshima survivor
> > about the ridiculous idea of an atomic bomb.
>
> Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the atomic
> bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But that bomb
> was a complicated work of ingenuity.
The bomb was a work of ingenuity, but it's not humans that made it work.
The theory that uranium 235 atoms are unstable, and that they will split
under the right conditions is entirely irrelevant to whether or not humans
can bring those conditions to pass. Splitting the atom was possible, now or
before 1945. It was only in the late 30's that it was discovered how the
atom could be split.
>And this same ingenuity cannot
> create life yet.
Again, it's not the ingenuity of humans that is being questioned, but the
hypothesis that chemical processes can produce life. Humans have not yet
discovered the conditions by which those chemical processes produce life.
That doesn't mean that humans never will, or that the process is impossible.
>Eventually it will be possible, given enough time,
> but that only means that life, itself, is a work of ingenuity.
Again, you are simply wrong. The Oklo reactor in Africa occured millions of
years before the first human made atomic reactor. Splitting the atom was
possible, without human intervention. Abiogenesis is most likely also
possible without human intervention.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021016.html
http://nuclearplanet.com/lamonitor.htm
>Since
> it is taking longer to create life, that means it is much more
> complicated to create. Since nature cannot create an atomic bomb, I
> doubt very much that it can create life on it's own.
Again, you are wrong. Nature can create, and has created an atomic
reaction. The Oklo reactor is a prime example. The sun in the sky is an
enormous fusion reaction, an H-bomb of immense porportions. There are
trillions of such reactors throughout the universe. Furthermore, the
A-bomb project was fuled by the desire of humans to posess a product of war.
It took millions of dollars and a decade of intense research. No such crash
program has ever been done to discover how abiogenesis operates, as the
social and economic factors aren't pushing as hard for an answer.
DJT
Cubist
[snippage, including Lewis Bachman's extensive list of references to
material which demolishes nameless' point]
> If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney
> stack of information claims that is could occur, then a lab at Harvard
> could create instant life. But it doesn't work that way and what we
> see here is smoke and mirrors.
In other words: "If Phenomenon X could occur, we'd be able to
reproduce it in a lab." Interesting position. Clearly, the list of
phenomena which cannot actually have occured, in spite of the numerous
erroneous observations which have fooled people into believing that
they *have* occured, is long. Gravity, the formation of planets,
volcanoes, the Big Bang -- none of these things actually exist.
Wow.
This illustrates the preposterous lengths to which Creationists
must go in their attempts to refute evolution...
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
>
> Be weary of all this nonsense.
Yes I am. But I'd still
like to help you.
Patrick James
(in message <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>):
> If abiogenesis could occur, as this phoney
> stack of information claims that is could occur, then a lab at Harvard
> could create instant life. But it doesn't work that way and what we
> see here is smoke and mirrors.
Nameless, you _are_ aware that a lab at Harvard (or anywhere else) can't make
a working star, aren't you? Gee. This means that stars don't exist. Including
the big yellow thing about one AU away from this ball of rock.
And you _are_ aware that a lab at Harvard (or anywhere else) can't make a
planet, aren't you? Gee. That means that the ball of rock mentioned above
doesn't exist, either.
BTW, you never did reply to my little questions on the matter of kinds. Given
that _some_ donkeys can have fertile crosses with _some_ horses, are donkeys
and horses the same kind, yes or no? Are there three kinds or just one? Are
lions and tiger the same kind, yes/no? Are British herring gulls the same
kind as British lesser black-backed gulls, yes/no?
Come on, nameless. Answer. Enquiring minds wanna know.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
J McCoy
What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
should be easy for humans.
But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be done as of
yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself, to make
life.
That's just the simple logic of it all.
IF man is given more time to work on creating life, I assume that it
will eventually be done. The careful documentation of how it was done,
the tools used, and the time it took, will clearly refute any notion
that nature could of done it.
J McCoy
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
> news:<b6s3f...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> snipping
>
>
> > > Zoom forward 20 years, and laugh with an Horoshima survivor
> > > about the ridiculous idea of an atomic bomb.
> >
> > Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the atomic
> > bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But that bomb
> > was a complicated work of ingenuity.
>
> The bomb was a work of ingenuity, but it's not humans that made it work.
> The theory that uranium 235 atoms are unstable, and that they will split
> under the right conditions is entirely irrelevant to whether or not humans
> can bring those conditions to pass. Splitting the atom was possible, now or
> before 1945. It was only in the late 30's that it was discovered how the
> atom could be split.
True. But that is a wrong comparison. Even though we didn't know that
splitting the atom was possible or not before the late 30's is
irrelevant. We knew how to split the bomb within years.
Now, you contend that nature could create life. Therefore it should be
a fact that chemicals sort themselves and produce life by themselves.
Which makes it an easy task. Yet, scientists know that this isn't
possible because it isn't an easy thing and it can't be done in a
laboratory in the simple manner specified. There are lots of lists as
to what chemicals naturally combine and that sort of thing. If those
lists amount to a hill of beans, then you could easiy put them
together and get them to create life. But in artificial conditions, as
that specified in laboratories, you're going to have devices that
limit natural entropy. Too much heat can destroy aminos, for example.
Ultraviolet rays, natural decomposition and oxidation. These are all
known factors that hinder abiogenesis. We know these things to be
fact. I think, in fact, with this knowledge scientists have given up.
You haven't heard anything in regard to this since the Miller-Urey
experiments. Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
genes.
J McCoy
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>If it's easy for nature, it
>should be easy for humans.
A classic.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy wrote:
I think, in fact, with this knowledge scientists have given up.
> You haven't heard anything in regard to this since the Miller-Urey
> experiments. Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
> genes.
>
> J McCoy
This list is short only because
I got bored with cutting and pasting.
Why do you think that scientists should
be able to repeat abiogenesis right now just to prove
you wrong when DNA was discovered only 50 years ago.
Still enough to make a point.
Lucas Bachmann
J McCoy
You can't even plug in the observations that lead to the hypothesis
stage and you expect me to believe that it's a hypothesis when it
clearly is not.
> I'm NOT defending it, just pointing out that, as hypothesis, it is
> entirely scientific. YOU have yet to show that it is not. By your lights
> I cannot insist that the world is round because, for me, having never
> travelled all the way around it, the fact is an inference, not an
> observation. Of course it was an inference for Eratosthenes, too.
What kind of hypothesis is it?
> > then jump ship. Somewhat similar to what is happening in Iraq right
> > now. The creationists come into talk.origins with their arguments, and
> > the evolutionists drops his guns and says you prove abiogenesis wrong
> > for me. That's it. See you later. If you're going to have that
> > mentality, why even bother to respond?
>
> Hey, you're the one who is claiming that it's not science. It's science
> as long as no part of the hypothesis is in direct conflict with
> observation or with inferences correctly drawn from observation.
My evidence is the last hundred years. The last hundred years wherein
scientists have found abiogenesis to be an impossible task, as
scientists cannot even create life, as of yet. IF man CANNOT DO IT,
NATURECANNOTDOIT. So my hypothesis, based on the last hundred of years
of observation, is that Nature cannot do it. That's clearly a great
hypothesis, and you know what, every 30 years we should advance it.
Which means it's long past theory stage, and with some more
observation we've now come to Scientific law, namely, that abiogenesis
cannot happen. That's the law. Based on 100 years of observation. The
atomic bomb was created in a shorter period of time.
>
>
> >> and you
> >> haven't shown any element of these hypotheses to be physically
> >> impossible.
> >
> > Science does sit around waiting for the seemingly impossible to
> > happen. The fact is, if it doesn't happen frequently and repeatly, it
> > isn't science.
>
> Baloney! Now you are defining science to your own tastes.
No Oscar Meyers here. I didn't define science. That has already been
done. I'm just urging you to follow the rules of science.
>
> >> Moreover, we can produce strong evidence that this planet was once in
> >> a condition where living organisms would have been physically
> >> impossible.
> >
> > No you can't.Your assumption is that lower geologic strata equals
> > time. That's false logic. The fact is, that layer may have been always
> > covered by upper layering.
>
> Except the fossils in these layers demonstrate that they were at or near
> the surface of the earth's crust and the isotope ratios demonstrate that
> those at the bottom are, indeed, older.
To explain the lower crust contridictions in age estimates (giving the
appearance of being young), some evolutionists state that the lower
parts give a false date because of "reheating" that occurs there. So
it is virtually impossible to figure out the true dates.
>
> >> Same for the universe at large. Therefore we can rigorously deduce
> >> that, like time itself, life has a beginning. Thus hypotheses about
> >> the nature of that beginning have the possibility of being
> >> scientific, even if we cannot yet choose which (if any) of them are
> >> correct.
>
> > If life had a beginning, why is it that the earliest ancestors of dogs
> > had all the traits that the descendent dogs had? Is it because God
>
> They didn't. They were single cell organisms now long extinct. Later
> they were fish. Then they were amphibia. Finally, they were reptiles,
> then a host of small mammals that only evolved into the earliest canids
> after the end of the cretaceous. You're inventing your data here.
You've missed my point completely. Dog charts clearly show how the
first dogs had a greater gene pool. Let's take this in the area of
humans. We have green eyes, brown, yellow, and blue. At one time we
had two parents and they accounted for all these colors. But their
descendents, us, do not have ALL these traits. When they had children
you could expect to see at least five different kinds of eyes born.
When we have children we no longer can expect to find five. In fact,
the further we get from our ancestors, unless we mate with every
different sort of human being, you could expect a few colors. This is
opposite to what evolution predicts.
>
> > created dogs with a huge gene pool in the begginning? Why, you'd think
>
> I don't theenk so senor. We see our dog breeds increasing in gene pool
> all the time.
Sorry senor, there is no net increase. If you want to increase variety
in dogs, you just mate them with other dogs of a different sort. Dog
pedigree charts show you what you can achieve. There's no mystery
behind this. You're an armchair speculative evolutionists. You're not
a dog breeder and you don't make pedigree charts. Evolutionists think
and see through their maxims. When you see a new kind of dog you
think, well that's a new evolution. A dog breeder doesn't think that
way. Rather, a dog breeder thinks, "I wonder what two breeds mated to
make that so." A good breeder recognizes the difference
characteristics and is able to surmise that without even speculating
as to what the two or more breeds are. Dog breeding is not merely
speculative, it is a practical science. Breeders have dog shows and
make charts. They are interested in obtaining the right dogs to
achieve the results that they are looking for. They compare and
contrast.
The theory of evolution is not a practical science. It says nothing
about the limits of genetic variation, but rather, speculates on how
men came from monkeys. Meanwhile scientists who are more astute than
the armchair evolutionists, go beyond speculation, but rather make
pedigree charts. Scientists aren't going to sit around finding
genotypes and phenotypes that supposedly relate man to monkeys when
such ideas are impractical and irrelevant. The practical science is
the true science. One that works and fits into pedigree charts. Your
scheme is speculative and non-workable. And irrelevant and not
beneficial to any practical science.
>
> > if evolution were the case, and true, then our ancestor dogs would
> > have a lower gene pool and gradually increase in gene pool as time
> > goes on. So that totally refutes the evolution concept. In fact, as
> > time goes on and the gene pool gets spread thin, and species of dogs
> > separate, inbreeding occurs. In humans we see genetic defects
> > accumulate in this way.
>
> Wild wolves exhibit a much smaller gene pool than human-bred dogs. Why is
> this?
Because certain dog experts put a question mark behind wolves when
they believe that it was the original ancestor. It was not. The other
dogs are not put into question mark because they are well-documented.
I believe, to ascertain the correct ancestor dog, that you would have
to breed all the dogs and the wolves together. That would create the
most probable original dog. This dog would be capable of giving birth
to a greater variety of dogs.
J McCoy
>
>
> >> > observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
> >>
> >> Don't need to, moron.
> >
> > Then don't call yourself scientific. You're just a wanna-be scientist
> > who doesn't understand the method.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Look what's talking! You're such a laugh, McCoy! Anyway,
> keep it up. You'll end up in hell for sure. That will save us the
> trouble of having to rehabilitate you in purgatory...
Whether I end up in hell or not is purely speculative. I hope not, I
trust not. If I don't go to hell, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ who
made that possible for me, for, surely I don't deserve to be in
heaven.
>
> >> > because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is fraudulent.
> >>
> >> You do not know this and have yet to prove this false claim.
> >
> > I do know this with such confidence that I have absolutely no doubt as
> > to the fact that abiogenesis can't take place. Because, if abiogenesis
>
> Because of your faith in Ken Ham (or some other like-minded moron)?
>
> > does and can take place, then human beings with their accumulated
> > knowledge could create life in a laboratory. Since this can't be done
> > with present knowledge, I have strong doubts that nature could do it
> > by itself. I just don't have the sense of faith in it as you do.
>
> We cannot reproduce, in the laboratory, the molecular evolution that took
> place in a planet-wide space over several hundred millions of years.
You don't need more time. Millions of years isn't going to cut it. You
need chemicals that bond instantly and beat the forces of heat, air
and other forces that will destroy it before the bonds are complete.
That's where abiogenecists have been mistaken. You need the elements
that work fast and know what they are doing to make abiogenesis to
happen. It has nothing to do with more "more" time. Time is the enemy
of abiogenesis. You need to beat the odds by working fast. Without the
fast component, abiogenesis is doomed. Time is the enemy. So your
spouting "millions" of years is like tossing dung up against a wall.
So
> what? As for creating life in a lab. It is happening already to a
> greater degree every year. Some people, a few months back actually built
> a polio virus from parts ordered over the internet. Scary, that!
Sigh. I've heard similar stories. Creationists know this, I know this,
but why don't you know this? We use parts to make virus, but we don't
make virus from scratch.
>
> >> Your claim
> >> that the concept is fraudulent is false witness, done in God's name,
> >> making you a blasphemer in addition to being a liar. Don't like the
> >> heat, then repent yourself out of the kitchen, sinner.
> >
> > First you call me moron?
>
> Yes, you are a deliberate, self-made halfwit.
Sticks and stones.
>
> > Now you're speaking on behalf of God? I
> > don't know where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you're
> > just an atheist trying to stir up trouble in support of your fledgling
> > abiogenesis theory.
>
> Don't you wish! I'm no atheist and I don't HAVE an abiogenesis theory
> that goes much beyond the claim that life on this planet has a beginning.
You're the god because you speak as if you knew him and you don't. You
deny his writings and therefore that means you're it. You're the one
who is speaking.
> >> > Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your idea
> >> > of
>
> >> No it's not. It's a straightforward application of the teachings of
> >> Jesus Christ. Do you know of any HIGHER authority in Christianity?
> >
> > You mean selective application of the teachings of Jesus. Let's see,
>
> Nothing selective about it.
>
> > you claim that men came from monkeys, right? So, when God removed a
>
> No, I claim that the human physical body shares a common genetic ancestor
> with chimps (who are apes, not monkeys). And yes, much earlier a common
> genetic ancestor with monkeys. But this is very different from saying
> that we "came from monkeys." Modern monkeys and apes are as far evolved
> from those ancestors as WE are, only in different directions.
That's silly. If we are common ancestors with monkeys then our common
ancestor was a monkey. Such is your fiction.
>
> Man, theologically speaking begins with the human soul. And this is the
> TRUE doctrine of creationism--that God imbues each human with a freshly-
> created soul.
And God took the soul-rib from Adam and made Eve? Why, if men were
made in the image of God, then I suppose God could have planted a soul
in a cockroach.
>
> > rib from the monkey, the monkey said, "Ook,ook, uhah,ook, Eve." To be
> > interpreted to mean, "Your name is Eve because you're the mother of
> > all living."
>
> Adam means literally mankind. Eve means womankind. And if you think God
> actually picked a rib out of a male human to make the first woman, then
> you're even worse at reading the Bible than you claim I am.
Actually, funny how you seem to know a lot by reading a lot, yet you
read and understand what I'm writing and understand it to boot. Yet,
you selectively give scripture broad and obscure meanings that any 10
year old wouldn't conclude. Interesting, \since, as a child I had no
contact with any clergy that told me Eve came from Adam, but that I
learned it from reading Genesis myself. I've never come to the bazaare
interpretations that you've formulated having read Genesis many times.
>
> >> > "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts
> >> > that support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you to
> >> > maintain such falsehoods.
> >>
> >> And even more delusional of you to make up requirements for science
> >> that are non-existent
>
> > Science is a requirement. The definition of science is that it is a
> > method. And the method has already been explained to you.
>
> I know the method. You are adding requirements to it.
What requirements? Experimentation and observation? Those are
requirements.
> >> and then accuse those who fail to meet those phony
> >> requirements of fraud. Stop the sin or go to hell with it. You
> >> wonder why I excommunicate you? I can't stand the sight of your lies
> >> in God's name, blasphemer!
> >
> > Now I know you're false. You're taking on the words written from movie
> > scripts of atheists who are trying to make Christians look bad. I
>
> YOU are making Christians look bad? Are you an atheist shill? Maybe
> THAT's what this is all about, eh?
I'm keeping my integrity and sticking to what the text says and not
what pop evolutionists say.
>
> > don't know of one of the hundreds of Christians that I've met over
> > time who have EVER called someone a "blasphemer."
>
> Well you don't meet THAT many blasphemers. Usually you meet ignorant
> people who will, when presented with the facts, retract their support for
> liars and move on. That's even decent Christian behaviour. But YOU are
> sitting here demanding a right to keep lying in God's name. That's
> blasphemy, son, right by the book! You know which book I mean, too.
> You're just too used to thumping it and not used to obeying it.
I'm not invoking God and I am not speaking for God. I am telling you
what the requirements of science are. And you fail at this.
>
> >> You need to GET some religion before you even START to think about
> >> handing around whatever it is you're calling religion.
> >
> > You had better start telling the truth. You should know the truth as
> > the truth can set you free.
>
> I do know the truth. That is what has got you in such a bad mood. Your
> lies aren't working here. I am not fooled by your pretend holiness.
I was once a theistic evolutionist so I'm not surprised that you're
one. But when I was a theistic evolutionists I could never tell you
that the evidence is there and you know that the evidence is not
there. A biology teacher friend of mine used to believe the same
garbage that you now believe, but I can tell you now that this person
was smart in abandoning the evolution post. But it wasn't always so.
I debated this person and tried to explain in detail how theistic
evolution was a false concept. It was an impossible task consisting of
outright ignoring what I had to say. One day this person realized that
evolution was wrong and a false concept and now tries to teach me a
thing or two. And if you were wise you'd abandon that post too,
before the onslaught of patriot missles makes it past your bedtime
hour.
J McCoy
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> should be easy for humans.
The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
humans?
And before I get piled on by outraged Christians; yes, I know
that McCoy is a dreadful example of Christian; and I do not
think Christians generally are anything like him. Fortunately.
Chris
Dana Tweedy
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b6sj8u$8j8as$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b6s3f...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > snipping
> >
> >
> > > > Zoom forward 20 years, and laugh with an Horoshima survivor
> > > > about the ridiculous idea of an atomic bomb.
> > >
> > > Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the atomic
> > > bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But that bomb
> > > was a complicated work of ingenuity.
> >
> > The bomb was a work of ingenuity, but it's not humans that made it work.
> > The theory that uranium 235 atoms are unstable, and that they will split
> > under the right conditions is entirely irrelevant to whether or not
humans
> > can bring those conditions to pass. Splitting the atom was possible,
now or
> > before 1945. It was only in the late 30's that it was discovered how
the
> > atom could be split.
>
> True. But that is a wrong comparison. Even though we didn't know that
> splitting the atom was possible or not before the late 30's is
> irrelevant. We knew how to split the bomb within years.
How is it "irrelevant"?
>
> Now, you contend that nature could create life. Therefore it should be
> a fact that chemicals sort themselves and produce life by themselves.
> Which makes it an easy task.
How do you get that idea? We still don't know the exact circumstances by
which chemical reactions led to live, and we don't know how long it took.
It may be a matter of thousands, or even millions of years. No one claims
that you pour the right chemical mix, and out pops a living cell. Quit
beating that poor straw man, he's out of stuffing.
>Yet, scientists know that this isn't
> possible because it isn't an easy thing and it can't be done in a
> laboratory in the simple manner specified.
Scientists don't know this "isn't possible" because they haven't been
studying the process long enough.
> There are lots of lists as
> to what chemicals naturally combine and that sort of thing. If those
> lists amount to a hill of beans, then you could easiy put them
> together and get them to create life.
Again, no one claims that life is as easy as making instant ice tea.
> But in artificial conditions, as
> that specified in laboratories, you're going to have devices that
> limit natural entropy.
"natural entropy" cannot be limitied. Nothing violates the laws of
thermodynamics.
> Too much heat can destroy aminos, for example.
> Ultraviolet rays, natural decomposition and oxidation. These are all
> known factors that hinder abiogenesis. We know these things to be
> fact.
We don't know what process abiogenesis took, so, it's way too early to
decide what processes "hinder abiogenesis".
> I think, in fact, with this knowledge scientists have given up.
As usual, you think wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan02.html
> You haven't heard anything in regard to this since the Miller-Urey
> experiments. Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
> genes.
As usual, your ignorance betrays you. Abiogenesis is currently being
studied, and there are several promising lines of research.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02zze.html
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
DJT
engelsman
<snip>
> IF man CANNOT DO IT,
> NATURECANNOTDOIT. So my hypothesis, based on the last hundred of years
> of observation, is that Nature cannot do it.
That is such a great hypothesis.
> That's clearly a great
> hypothesis,
Yep, great hypothesis.
> and you know what, every 30 years we should advance it.
> Which means it's long past theory stage, and with some more
> observation we've now come to Scientific law, namely, that abiogenesis
> cannot happen.
Are you ridiculing your own theory?
> That's the law. Based on 100 years of observation. The
> atomic bomb was created in a shorter period of time.
This is quite a sarcastic attack on your own postulation that neither
man nor nature can do it.
You are abysmally stupid, as always.
Grinder
can
> create life without human or supernatural assistance), then
it should
> be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for
nature, it
> should be easy for humans.
>
> But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be
done as of
> yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself,
to make
> life.
>
> That's just the simple logic of it all.
You're missing a step here. The first part leaves the door
open for "natural abiogenesis." If it's harder from nature to
do it than man, it's still not qualified as impossible.
As for "if it's easy for nature, it should be easy for
human," -- that's a dubious statement. Thousands of earth
quakes happen every year, surely it's relatively "easy for
nature" to make these. For humans, well, ask Lex Luthor about
that one.
> IF man is given more time to work on creating life, I assume
that it
> will eventually be done. The careful documentation of how it
was done,
> the tools used, and the time it took, will clearly refute any
notion
> that nature could of done it.
Here, you just declare that it _will_ become apparent that
there's no such thing as "natural abiogenesis," apparently
because of poor project management skills.
Skitter...@shadowwatch.org
On 8-Apr-2003, Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> Path:
> twister.neo.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
> From: Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au>
> Newsgroups: talk.origins
> Subject: Re: Attn, Evolutionists: Plug it in
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:57:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: University of Ediacara
> Lines: 19
> Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
> Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
> Message-ID: <3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>
> References: <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> <Xns9354E34F8AEFE...@142.77.1.194>
> <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> <3E90BBE2...@yahoo.com>
> <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> <b6s3f...@enews1.newsguy.com>
> <3f355ee.0304...@posting.google.com>
> <b6sgd...@enews1.newsguy.com>
> <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
> X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1049846252 52787 128.100.83.246 (8 Apr 2003
> 23:57:32 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:57:32 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7
> (sun4u))
> X-Authenticated-User: hostuart
> Xref: news-server.columbus.rr.com talk.origins:1168165
Thanks for not lumping us. I don't think you had much to worry about with
your comment though, your use of "a Christian" rather than just "Christians"
qualified your remark pretty clearly. I hope no one would have piled onto
you; It would have been undeserved.
Oh, and BTW-I have no any why anyone, Christian or not, would think such a
strange thing as was asserted.
Skitter the Cat
SortingItOut
> "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message news:<b6sgd...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. From
> > the first two quotes, above, I've taken from you that
> > "abiogenesis is not scientific." Presumably, by this, you mean
> > that it is divine and cannot be (scientifically) studied -- it
> > is outside the realm of human observation.
>
> What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> should be easy for humans.
Who said it was easy for nature? Just because it (may have) happened
naturally does not necessarily mean it was easy. It may have taken
hundreds of millions of years with the oceans full of organic
chemicals. If that was the case, how could you expect man to do it
in...say...a couple of hundred years?
>
> But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be done as of
> yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself, to make
> life.
Okay...so let's assume it was hard for nature to make life.
>
>
> That's just the simple logic of it all.
So using your logic along with the starting assumption that it was
hard for nature to make life, then what are you arguing?
Let's look at two other examples: hurricanes and diamonds. It was
relatively hard for man to make diamonds. This happened only
recently. We still cannot make hurricanes (as far as I know). What
does this say about nature's ability to create these two things? On a
scale of difficulty, where does life go on the scale compared to
hurricanes and diamonds, and why?
>
> IF man is given more time to work on creating life, I assume that it
> will eventually be done. The careful documentation of how it was done,
> the tools used, and the time it took, will clearly refute any notion
> that nature could of done it.
Are we to conclude from this reasoning that nature could not have
created diamonds?
Ross Langerak
not?
> holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
The sequence you provide below is not the scientific method. The
scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and
experimentation.
Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based
upon a theory.
Step 4 is an experiment which tests the hypothesis. The result is
more data and we return to step 1.
The creationist argument against abiogenesis argues that abiogenesis
is required for evolution to have occurred. This is disingenius at
best since if evolution requires abiogenesis, then all of the evidence
supporting evolution also supports abiogenesis. The evidence
overwhelmingly supports evolution, so the evidence overwhelmingly
supports abiogenesis.
Strictly speaking, abiogenesis is a process, not a theory. Theories
on abiogenesis explain how that process took place. Unfortunately,
evidence is scarce regarding how abiogenesis actually took place.
There are no rocks available that were formed at that time.
Abiogenesis left no fossils. Even the oldest known life on the planet
was already the result of a few hundred million years of evolution,
and we have no way of analyzing its biochemistry. Despite these
difficulties, we do have a good idea what materials were available
when abiogenesis occurred, and we can look at life today to see how it
all turned out. Theories on abiogenesis are scientific because they
fit the evidence, and they make predictions (hypotheses) that can be
tested. Check out the following websites for more on abiogenesis.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/origin.html
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/articles/altman/
>
> Observations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Observation and repetition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Theory.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More observation and repetition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J McCoy
>
>
J McCoy
> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> > should be easy for humans.
>
> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
>
> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> humans?
Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
to duplicate.
If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon, then it
would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
J McCoy
J McCoy
> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature
> can
> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then
> it should
> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for
> nature, it
> > should be easy for humans.
> >
> > But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be
> done as of
> > yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself,
> to make
> > life.
> >
> > That's just the simple logic of it all.
>
> You're missing a step here. The first part leaves the door
> open for "natural abiogenesis." If it's harder from nature to
> do it than man, it's still not qualified as impossible.
>
> As for "if it's easy for nature, it should be easy for
> human," -- that's a dubious statement. Thousands of earth
> quakes happen every year, surely it's relatively "easy for
> nature" to make these. For humans, well, ask Lex Luthor about
> that one.
Actually, Tesla claimed that he could create earthquakes. All he
needed was to create the right frequencies and it was a done deal.
> > IF man is given more time to work on creating life, I assume
> that it
> > will eventually be done. The careful documentation of how it
> was done,
> > the tools used, and the time it took, will clearly refute any
> notion
> > that nature could of done it.
>
> Here, you just declare that it _will_ become apparent that
> there's no such thing as "natural abiogenesis," apparently
> because of poor project management skills.
Naturecannotdoit.
J McCoy
J McCoy
Where have we heard these promises before? We promise to find the
missing link. We promise to create life in a laboratory. Given enough
time we will promise...
I'm all promised out, and so are evolutionists. That's why you see
computerize cartoons of monkey men walking around, as, "if you can't
find it, make it up."
J McCoy
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns93567B1B047D4...@142.77.1.194>...
[snip lots of nonsense]
> IF man CANNOT DO IT,
> NATURECANNOTDOIT.
Man cannot create an earthquake, nature can. Hence your stupid claim
is false.
[snip more nonsense]
> To explain the lower crust contridictions in age estimates (giving the
> appearance of being young),
Care to give an example for these "contridications", where the rocks
appear "young"?
> some evolutionists state that the lower
> parts give a false date because of "reheating" that occurs there.
Care to give evidence for this?
[snip]
> Dog charts clearly show how the
> first dogs had a greater gene pool.
How do they show this?
> Let's take this in the area of
> humans. We have green eyes, brown, yellow, and blue. At one time we
> had two parents and they accounted for all these colors.
Where is your evidence for this?
And how does that work? What eye color did these parents have?
> But their descendents, us, do not have ALL these traits.
And how did the "splitting" of the gene pool work, so that every
descendant got only a part of the traits?
[snip]
> > I don't theenk so senor. We see our dog breeds increasing in gene pool
> > all the time.
>
> Sorry senor, there is no net increase.
Evidence for this, please.
>If you want to increase variety
> in dogs, you just mate them with other dogs of a different sort.
Variety increases on its own sometimes, too. Ever heard of "mutation"?
(and no, John, these aren't all "always harmful"; most are neutral,
and some are beneficial)
> Dog pedigree charts show you what you can achieve.
These charts give a statistical average; there is lots of variation
around the average.
[snip]
> The practical science is
> the true science.
Oh, all theoretical science is useless? You should have told this to
Maxwell - then we wouldn't have all this pesky electromagnetic
radiation today produced by humans. You know, radio, TV, telephone and
all that - really absolute irrelevant and unpractical for life, isn't
it?
[snip]
> > Wild wolves exhibit a much smaller gene pool than human-bred dogs. Why is
> > this?
>
> Because certain dog experts put a question mark behind wolves when
> they believe that it was the original ancestor.
Evidence for this, please.
> It was not.
Pardon? John, do you *really* want to say that some dogs didn't come
from wolves???
> The other
> dogs are not put into question mark because they are well-documented.
> I believe, to ascertain the correct ancestor dog, that you would have
> to breed all the dogs and the wolves together. That would create the
> most probable original dog.
Why?
Do you expect that all of their gene pools "fuse" somehow?
> This dog would be capable of giving birth
> to a greater variety of dogs.
Why? How is this supposed to work?
[snip]
> > We cannot reproduce, in the laboratory, the molecular evolution that took
> > place in a planet-wide space over several hundred millions of years.
>
> You don't need more time. Millions of years isn't going to cut it. You
> need chemicals that bond instantly and beat the forces of heat, air
> and other forces that will destroy it before the bonds are complete.
Well, the chemical bonds in amino acids do just that.
> That's where abiogenecists have been mistaken.
Sorry, I don't see the problem. It is well known that the molecules
which are needed for life can form on the early Earth and are stable
at these conditions. Ever heard of Miller-Urey?
> You need the elements that work fast
Well, we have them.
> and know what they are doing
Elements which know what they are doing???
> to make abiogenesis to happen.
Why must the elements "know what they are doing" to make abiogenesis
happen?
> It has nothing to do with more "more" time.
Why not?
> Time is the enemy of abiogenesis.
Why?
> You need to beat the odds by working fast.
Why? The molecules are stable.
> Without the
> fast component, abiogenesis is doomed.
Completely wrong. Where did you get this nonsense from?
[snip]
> > So
> > what? As for creating life in a lab. It is happening already to a
> > greater degree every year. Some people, a few months back actually built
> > a polio virus from parts ordered over the internet. Scary, that!
>
> Sigh. I've heard similar stories. Creationists know this, I know this,
> but why don't you know this? We use parts to make virus, but we don't
> make virus from scratch.
But at least some of the parts *can* be made from scratch!
John, in principle you are saying: "A to B is possible, B to C is
possible, but A to C? No way!"
[snip]
> > Man, theologically speaking begins with the human soul. And this is the
> > TRUE doctrine of creationism--that God imbues each human with a freshly-
> > created soul.
>
> And God took the soul-rib from Adam and made Eve?
John, it's an allegorical story. Is this so hard to accept?
> Why, if men were
> made in the image of God, then I suppose God could have planted a soul
> in a cockroach.
Perhaps he could. He didn't do it.
> > Adam means literally mankind. Eve means womankind. And if you think God
> > actually picked a rib out of a male human to make the first woman, then
> > you're even worse at reading the Bible than you claim I am.
>
> Actually, funny how you seem to know a lot by reading a lot, yet you
> read and understand what I'm writing and understand it to boot. Yet,
> you selectively give scripture broad and obscure meanings that any 10
> year old wouldn't conclude.
Why do you think so? 10 years old are often bright enough to recognize
a story isn't meant literally.
> Interesting, \since, as a child I had no
> contact with any clergy that told me Eve came from Adam, but that I
> learned it from reading Genesis myself.
Why do you think that Genesis has to be read literally and not as an
allegory?
> I've never come to the bazaare
> interpretations that you've formulated having read Genesis many times.
You should try looking at nature instead of only looking into the
Bible.
The Bible itself tells you that the handiwork of God can be seen in
His creation; so why do you insist for looking for the origin of man
in the Bible instead of in His creation?
[snip]
> > > Science is a requirement. The definition of science is that it is a
> > > method. And the method has already been explained to you.
> >
> > I know the method. You are adding requirements to it.
>
> What requirements?
That the process itself has to be repeatable, instead of only the
observations.
John, has anyone ever observed a tree growing from a seed to a height
of 50 meters? No. Does this mean it is not scientific to say that this
is possible, based on short time observations of other trees growing
and the existence of trees with this height?
Has anyone ever observed a complete orbit of Pluto? No again. Does
this mean it is not scientific to say that he will complete his orbit,
based on short time observations of his movement and the known law of
gravity?
Has anyone ever observed a new family appearing? No again. Does this
mean it is not scientific to say that new families can appear, based
on short time observations of the appearance of new species and the
known mechanisms of mutation and natural selection?
Has anyone ever observed life coming from non-life? No. Does this mean
it is not scientific to say that this can happen, based on short time
observations of chemical reactions in the lab and the known laws of
chemistry?
Either you say none of the scenarios above are scientific (and then
you would really reveal how dumb you are), or you have to explain the
differences between the four scenarios.
> Experimentation and observation? Those are
> requirements.
Right. It is a requirement that experiments are done, and that
observations are done, and that both of these things give repeatable
results. This is the case in evolution as well as in abiogenesis.
[snip]
> I am telling you
> what the requirements of science are. And you fail at this.
No, John, *you* are failing here.
[snip]
> > > You had better start telling the truth. You should know the truth as
> > > the truth can set you free.
> >
> > I do know the truth. That is what has got you in such a bad mood. Your
> > lies aren't working here. I am not fooled by your pretend holiness.
>
> I was once a theistic evolutionist so I'm not surprised that you're
> one. But when I was a theistic evolutionists I could never tell you
> that the evidence is there and you know that the evidence is not
> there.
It is there. What evidence is missing, in your opinion? We have lots
of fossils intermediate between apes and humans. We have genetic
evidence that chimps and human share a common ancestor.
> A biology teacher friend of mine used to believe the same
> garbage that you now believe, but I can tell you now that this person
> was smart in abandoning the evolution post.
Nice claim. Care to back it up?
> But it wasn't always so.
> I debated this person and tried to explain in detail how theistic
> evolution was a false concept.
Oh, could you explain this to us, too, please?
> It was an impossible task consisting of
> outright ignoring what I had to say. One day this person realized that
> evolution was wrong and a false concept and now tries to teach me a
> thing or two.
Care to back this up?
> And if you were wise you'd abandon that post too,
> before the onslaught of patriot missles makes it past your bedtime
> hour.
Is this supposed to be a threat?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> > I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. From
> > the first two quotes, above, I've taken from you that
> > "abiogenesis is not scientific." Presumably, by this, you mean
> > that it is divine and cannot be (scientifically) studied -- it
> > is outside the realm of human observation.
>
> What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> should be easy for humans.
Why???
Nature can create earthquakes without human or supernatural
assistance, hence according to you it should be an easy task for
people to make earthquakes, too.
If it's easy for nature, it should be easy for humans.
Nature can create tornados without human or supernatural assistance,
hence according to you it should be an easy task for people to make
tornados, too.
If it's easy for nature, it should be easy for humans.
Your "logic" is absolute nonsense, as even five seconds of thinking
would have shown you.
> But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be done as of
> yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself, to make
> life.
Absolute non sequitur.
> That's just the simple logic of it all.
John, do you perhaps confuse the meanings of the words "logic" and
"nonsense"?
> IF man is given more time to work on creating life, I assume that it
> will eventually be done.
Oh, how generous.
> The careful documentation of how it was done,
> the tools used, and the time it took, will clearly refute any notion
> that nature could of done it.
Do you engage in prophecy now?
[snip rest]
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> Now, you contend that nature could create life. Therefore it should be
> a fact that chemicals sort themselves
Why is sorting needed?
> and produce life by themselves.
Well, yes, that's the hypothesis. They just need the right mix, the
right environment and enough time.
> Which makes it an easy task.
Why? We don't know the exact mix and the exact environment yet, and we
don't have enough time.
> Yet, scientists know that this isn't
> possible
Wrong. No scientist "knows" this.
> because it isn't an easy thing
Right, it isn't easy. But "not easy" and "not possible" is not the
same.
> and it can't be done in a
> laboratory in the simple manner specified.
It can't be done *yet*.
> There are lots of lists as
> to what chemicals naturally combine and that sort of thing.
Right. Hint: carbon can combine with other elements to form amino
acids. And probably RNA. And RNA can probably develop into DNA.
And before you quibble about "probably": it is examined in the
laboratories right now if this is possible, and if yes, how.
> If those
> lists amount to a hill of beans, then you could easiy put them
> together and get them to create life.
Non sequitur.
> But in artificial conditions, as
> that specified in laboratories, you're going to have devices that
> limit natural entropy.
Huh? Pardon?
> Too much heat can destroy aminos, for example.
Right. So what?
> Ultraviolet rays, natural decomposition and oxidation.
Right. So what?
What has all of this do to with "natural entropy"?
And why do you think these are problems for abiogenesis?
> These are all known factors that hinder abiogenesis.
There was not too much heat on the early Earth, and ultraviolet rays
and oxidation is prevented by abiogenesis occuring under water.
Natural composition isn't a problem either. So what's the problem?
> We know these things to be fact.
Yes, we know as a fact that these things are no problems for
abiogenesis.
> I think, in fact, with this knowledge scientists have given up.
So, what are all this people doing which say that they are doing
research on abiogenesis? Sitting around in the lab the whole day and
chatting?
> You haven't heard anything in regard to this since the Miller-Urey
> experiments.
Err, no, John, only *you* haven't heard anything in regard to this.
Because you refuse to listen. There is lots of research going on, and
new results keep coming in.
> Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
> genes.
Wrong. Scientists are still working on abiogenesis, with better and
better results. Your complete denial of reality won't change this.
[snip rest]
I see you completely ignored the ugly fact that atom reactors can
appear on their own...
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is
> not?
> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>
> The sequence you provide below is not the scientific method. The
> scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
>
> Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and
> experimentation.
>
> Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
>
> Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based
> upon a theory.
Good grief. A real big mistaken by an evolutionist. Where did you
study out of? A hypothesis precedes theory.
J McCoy
Dave Oldridge
McCoy, I CAN do this and HAVE done it. YOU could do it, too if you would
bother to research. The fact is, the BIGGEST problem with abiogenesis is
not that we lack any ideas, but that we have too many DIFFERENT ideas and,
as yet, have been unable to sort between them.
You are a liar, pure and simple. And as such, there is no reason to
believe that you are anywhere close to being in God's grace. So why
should anyone take spiritual instruction from a devout sinner who hates
God and only uses the Bible as a foil to his own pathetic ego??
(And who can't even read plain English text for meaning!)
>> I'm NOT defending it, just pointing out that, as hypothesis, it is
>> entirely scientific. YOU have yet to show that it is not. By your
>> lights I cannot insist that the world is round because, for me,
>> having never travelled all the way around it, the fact is an
>> inference, not an observation. Of course it was an inference for
>> Eratosthenes, too.
>
> What kind of hypothesis is it?
It's chemistry, with a little physics thrown in, in case you hadn't
noticed.
>> > then jump ship. Somewhat similar to what is happening in Iraq right
>> > now. The creationists come into talk.origins with their arguments,
>> > and the evolutionists drops his guns and says you prove abiogenesis
>> > wrong for me. That's it. See you later. If you're going to have
>> > that mentality, why even bother to respond?
>> Hey, you're the one who is claiming that it's not science. It's
>> science as long as no part of the hypothesis is in direct conflict
>> with observation or with inferences correctly drawn from observation.
> My evidence is the last hundred years. The last hundred years wherein
> scientists have found abiogenesis to be an impossible task, as
> scientists cannot even create life, as of yet. IF man CANNOT DO IT,
So what? Actually, it's arguable that the deed has now been done. That
polio virus was built from chemical scratch.
> NATURECANNOTDOIT. So my hypothesis, based on the last hundred of years
This makes it clear that you are not much of an observer of nature.
Nature has an economy of scale that permits it to do many things that man
cannot do. For example when did you ever see man make a star? Or better
yet, a galaxy. Yet it is entirely clear that these structures arise from
purely natural forces. YOUR problem is that you think that "natural"
means "not God." You have been misled. "Natural" is whatever God has
created. But you hate Him so you try to dictate His methods to Him out of
your pet book that you don't begin to understand.
> of observation, is that Nature cannot do it. That's clearly a great
> hypothesis, and you know what, every 30 years we should advance it.
> Which means it's long past theory stage, and with some more
> observation we've now come to Scientific law, namely, that abiogenesis
> cannot happen. That's the law. Based on 100 years of observation. The
> atomic bomb was created in a shorter period of time.
Bullshit. Actually, we are within a decade or two of creating single cell
organisms to order. It's chemistry. What is NOT so clear is the exact
chemical pathway by which cell biota came to exist. Not that we don't
have ideas. In fact we have a lot of ideas, but have no good way to sort
them. One of the problems being that molecules don't leave fossils much.
But you aren't interested in facts, just in sowing hatred against honest
scientists. You're a deliberate sinner, in rebellion against God and
Church. As a devout hypocrite, you are only an example of what NOT to do.
>> >> and you
>> >> haven't shown any element of these hypotheses to be physically
>> >> impossible.
>> >
>> > Science does sit around waiting for the seemingly impossible to
>> > happen. The fact is, if it doesn't happen frequently and repeatly,
>> > it isn't science.
>>
>> Baloney! Now you are defining science to your own tastes.
> No Oscar Meyers here. I didn't define science. That has already been
> done. I'm just urging you to follow the rules of science.
No you are not. You are urging me to follow the rules of McCoy. Guess
what. I SPIT on the rules of McCoy.
>> >> Moreover, we can produce strong evidence that this planet was once
>> >> in a condition where living organisms would have been physically
>> >> impossible.
>> >
>> > No you can't.Your assumption is that lower geologic strata equals
>> > time. That's false logic. The fact is, that layer may have been
>> > always covered by upper layering.
>>
>> Except the fossils in these layers demonstrate that they were at or
>> near the surface of the earth's crust and the isotope ratios
>> demonstrate that those at the bottom are, indeed, older.
>
> To explain the lower crust contridictions in age estimates (giving the
> appearance of being young), some evolutionists state that the lower
> parts give a false date because of "reheating" that occurs there. So
> it is virtually impossible to figure out the true dates.
Some parts of them do. But the evidence of these reheating episodes is
also visible. What DOES happen sometimes is we try to date a secondary
heating event that was not complete and get an isochron for an earlier
episode that was. This is no comfort to young-earth nitwits. But they
are generally too dumb to notice this (or they are professional
creationists who believe (possibly correctly) their target audience to be
that dumb).
>> >> Same for the universe at large. Therefore we can rigorously
>> >> deduce that, like time itself, life has a beginning. Thus
>> >> hypotheses about the nature of that beginning have the possibility
>> >> of being scientific, even if we cannot yet choose which (if any)
>> >> of them are correct.
>>
>> > If life had a beginning, why is it that the earliest ancestors of
>> > dogs had all the traits that the descendent dogs had? Is it
>> > because God
>>
>> They didn't. They were single cell organisms now long extinct.
>> Later they were fish. Then they were amphibia. Finally, they were
>> reptiles, then a host of small mammals that only evolved into the
>> earliest canids after the end of the cretaceous. You're inventing
>> your data here.
>
> You've missed my point completely. Dog charts clearly show how the
> first dogs had a greater gene pool. Let's take this in the area of
Huh? Why shouldn't they. The first stage in any breeding program is to
collect genes for certain traits in the new breed's gene pool.
> humans. We have green eyes, brown, yellow, and blue. At one time we
> had two parents and they accounted for all these colors. But their
Actually, four alleles is all that two parents can account for. Yet some
of our genes today have hundreds of alleles. Where did all the extra ones
come from?
> descendents, us, do not have ALL these traits. When they had children
> you could expect to see at least five different kinds of eyes born.
Assuming that none of the alleles was recessive with respect to any other
and assuming that each one had some effect on phenotype, then you could
expect precisely 6 phenotypes from such a scheme.
> When we have children we no longer can expect to find five. In fact,
> the further we get from our ancestors, unless we mate with every
> different sort of human being, you could expect a few colors. This is
> opposite to what evolution predicts.
That may be true of eye colours (I'm not really sure that it is, though).
But it is emphatically NOT true of many of our genes.
>> > created dogs with a huge gene pool in the begginning? Why, you'd
>> > think
>>
>> I don't theenk so senor. We see our dog breeds increasing in gene
>> pool all the time.
> Sorry senor, there is no net increase. If you want to increase variety
Wrong. There IS a net increase in the overall pool.
> in dogs, you just mate them with other dogs of a different sort. Dog
> pedigree charts show you what you can achieve. There's no mystery
> behind this. You're an armchair speculative evolutionists. You're not
> a dog breeder and you don't make pedigree charts. Evolutionists think
While all of these charts ARE relevant to breeders, they are NOT relevant
to the FACT that nearly every reproduction results in new genetic
information NOT present in the genome of either parent. This has been
tested to death in labs ever since Alan Robertson first discovered it in
moths, back in 1956. Do try getting up to speed with the science!
> and see through their maxims. When you see a new kind of dog you
> think, well that's a new evolution. A dog breeder doesn't think that
> way. Rather, a dog breeder thinks, "I wonder what two breeds mated to
> make that so." A good breeder recognizes the difference
A REALLY observant breeder will also be able to tell you that, when
selecting for any particular trait, one rapidly runs out of existing
variation in that trait. THEN you have to wait for mutations to supply
additional variation. You are demonstrating your ignorance. And this
kind of ignorance is dangerous, because when it is taught as "science" it
results in poorly devised seed crop programs and bad livestock breeding
programs, impacting directly on the food supply.
Of course, then you turkeys would all claim that the famine YOU caused was
God's punishment on your victims for not being docile sheep for you to
sheer.
> characteristics and is able to surmise that without even speculating
> as to what the two or more breeds are. Dog breeding is not merely
> speculative, it is a practical science. Breeders have dog shows and
> make charts. They are interested in obtaining the right dogs to
> achieve the results that they are looking for. They compare and
> contrast.
Yes it IS practical science and a dog breeder who understands evolution
will do better at it than you will.
> The theory of evolution is not a practical science. It says nothing
Liar. The theory of evolution is what is keeping most of us fed.
> about the limits of genetic variation, but rather, speculates on how
> men came from monkeys. Meanwhile scientists who are more astute than
It does not. Men did not come from monkeys. Men and monkeys have a
distant common ancestor. Men and chimpanzees have a less distant one.
The genes SHOUT this.
> the armchair evolutionists, go beyond speculation, but rather make
> pedigree charts. Scientists aren't going to sit around finding
> genotypes and phenotypes that supposedly relate man to monkeys when
> such ideas are impractical and irrelevant. The practical science is
> the true science. One that works and fits into pedigree charts. Your
> scheme is speculative and non-workable. And irrelevant and not
> beneficial to any practical science.
Bullshit. I'll use your pedigree charts and throw in a good working
knowledge of modern genetics and beat your breeding abilities any day.
>> > if evolution were the case, and true, then our ancestor dogs would
>> > have a lower gene pool and gradually increase in gene pool as time
>> > goes on. So that totally refutes the evolution concept. In fact, as
>> > time goes on and the gene pool gets spread thin, and species of
>> > dogs separate, inbreeding occurs. In humans we see genetic defects
>> > accumulate in this way.
>>
>> Wild wolves exhibit a much smaller gene pool than human-bred dogs.
>> Why is this?
>
> Because certain dog experts put a question mark behind wolves when
> they believe that it was the original ancestor. It was not. The other
> dogs are not put into question mark because they are well-documented.
> I believe, to ascertain the correct ancestor dog, that you would have
> to breed all the dogs and the wolves together. That would create the
> most probable original dog. This dog would be capable of giving birth
> to a greater variety of dogs.
Actually, the reason dogs (taken as a whole) have such a wide gene pool is
precisely because humans have fostered mutations, when they appeared, that
would have disappeared quickly from a wild population.
In other words, a great deal of that variation is due to past mutations.
If it were not, and if all diploid species were descended from a recent
(in geologic terms) single created pair, then the number of alleles at any
given locus should usually be four, occasionally less. But we actually
find hundreds at some loci. Where do these come from?
>> >> > observations of abiogenesis taking or haven taken place. That's
>> >>
>> >> Don't need to, moron.
>> >
>> > Then don't call yourself scientific. You're just a wanna-be
>> > scientist who doesn't understand the method.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Look what's talking! You're such a laugh, McCoy!
>> Anyway, keep it up. You'll end up in hell for sure. That will save
>> us the trouble of having to rehabilitate you in purgatory...
>
> Whether I end up in hell or not is purely speculative. I hope not, I
> trust not. If I don't go to hell, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ who
> made that possible for me, for, surely I don't deserve to be in
> heaven.
Why should you thank Jesus Christ? And why do you call Him Lord when you
categorically refuse to obey Him?
None of us deserve to be in heaven. But you won't get there by rejecting
Jesus Christ and He won't save you on account of hypocritical name-
dropping. You actually have to give over your sins to Him or the bargain
is only half-complete. He did His part. It's time you did yours.
>> >> > because abiogenesis can't take place and the concept is
>> >> > fraudulent.
>> >>
>> >> You do not know this and have yet to prove this false claim.
>> >
>> > I do know this with such confidence that I have absolutely no doubt
>> > as to the fact that abiogenesis can't take place. Because, if
>> > abiogenesis
>>
>> Because of your faith in Ken Ham (or some other like-minded moron)?
>>
>> > does and can take place, then human beings with their accumulated
>> > knowledge could create life in a laboratory. Since this can't be
>> > done with present knowledge, I have strong doubts that nature could
>> > do it by itself. I just don't have the sense of faith in it as you
>> > do.
>>
>> We cannot reproduce, in the laboratory, the molecular evolution that
>> took place in a planet-wide space over several hundred millions of
>> years.
>
> You don't need more time. Millions of years isn't going to cut it. You
> need chemicals that bond instantly and beat the forces of heat, air
> and other forces that will destroy it before the bonds are complete.
Actually, there are some classes of these that will continue to increase
in concentration under the right conditions. What we need to know is
whether the right conditions were present for any reasonable length of
time, noting that the evolution up to cellular life is what we're talking
about here.
> That's where abiogenecists have been mistaken. You need the elements
> that work fast and know what they are doing to make abiogenesis to
> happen. It has nothing to do with more "more" time. Time is the enemy
> of abiogenesis. You need to beat the odds by working fast. Without the
> fast component, abiogenesis is doomed. Time is the enemy. So your
> spouting "millions" of years is like tossing dung up against a wall.
The initial component could happen in an afternoon.
> So
>> what? As for creating life in a lab. It is happening already to a
>> greater degree every year. Some people, a few months back actually
>> built a polio virus from parts ordered over the internet. Scary,
>> that!
>
> Sigh. I've heard similar stories. Creationists know this, I know this,
> but why don't you know this? We use parts to make virus, but we don't
> make virus from scratch.
Uh, they bought sequenced DNA. You can have DNA sequenced any way you
want now for about a dollar a base pair.
>> >> Your claim
>> >> that the concept is fraudulent is false witness, done in God's
>> >> name, making you a blasphemer in addition to being a liar. Don't
>> >> like the heat, then repent yourself out of the kitchen, sinner.
>> >
>> > First you call me moron?
>>
>> Yes, you are a deliberate, self-made halfwit.
>
> Sticks and stones.
You don't HAVE bones. You're a spineless coward when it comes to real
spiritual work.
>> > Now you're speaking on behalf of God? I
>> > don't know where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you're
>> > just an atheist trying to stir up trouble in support of your
>> > fledgling abiogenesis theory.
>>
>> Don't you wish! I'm no atheist and I don't HAVE an abiogenesis
>> theory that goes much beyond the claim that life on this planet has a
>> beginning.
> You're the god because you speak as if you knew him and you don't. You
Wrong. I know Him. You just try to talk like you do. Actually you hate
Him, so you make up your own false god and set it up in the public place
and try to get your government to order worship.
> deny his writings and therefore that means you're it. You're the one
> who is speaking.
God did not write any books. God did inspire some men over the years and
THEY wrote books. But you don't even understand plain English, never mind
have any idea how to understand the writings of inspired mystics.
>> >> > Your accusations of "fake Christian" et.al. is nonsense. Your
>> >> > idea of
>>
>> >> No it's not. It's a straightforward application of the teachings
>> >> of Jesus Christ. Do you know of any HIGHER authority in
>> >> Christianity?
>> >
>> > You mean selective application of the teachings of Jesus. Let's
>> > see,
>>
>> Nothing selective about it.
>>
>> > you claim that men came from monkeys, right? So, when God removed
>> > a
>>
>> No, I claim that the human physical body shares a common genetic
>> ancestor with chimps (who are apes, not monkeys). And yes, much
>> earlier a common genetic ancestor with monkeys. But this is very
>> different from saying that we "came from monkeys." Modern monkeys
>> and apes are as far evolved from those ancestors as WE are, only in
>> different directions.
>
> That's silly. If we are common ancestors with monkeys then our common
> ancestor was a monkey. Such is your fiction.
No, our common ancestor was a primate and a member of the sub-order
anthropoidea, but it was neither monkey nor ape. (No it wasn't human
either). But we share the same inherited genetic disease with all of
these species.
The common ancestor of humans and chimps came much later and WAS,
arguably, an ape. But then WE are, arguably, STILL apes. We just happen
to be the ape that walks erect and talks.
>> Man, theologically speaking begins with the human soul. And this is
>> the TRUE doctrine of creationism--that God imbues each human with a
>> freshly- created soul.
> And God took the soul-rib from Adam and made Eve? Why, if men were
> made in the image of God, then I suppose God could have planted a soul
> in a cockroach.
If God wanted to do this, why would you suppose He could not have? But
then your understanding of theology is about on a par with your
understanding of science.
>> > rib from the monkey, the monkey said, "Ook,ook, uhah,ook, Eve." To
>> > be interpreted to mean, "Your name is Eve because you're the mother
>> > of all living."
>>
>> Adam means literally mankind. Eve means womankind. And if you think
>> God actually picked a rib out of a male human to make the first
>> woman, then you're even worse at reading the Bible than you claim I
>> am.
> Actually, funny how you seem to know a lot by reading a lot, yet you
> read and understand what I'm writing and understand it to boot. Yet,
> you selectively give scripture broad and obscure meanings that any 10
> year old wouldn't conclude. Interesting, \since, as a child I had no
> contact with any clergy that told me Eve came from Adam, but that I
> learned it from reading Genesis myself. I've never come to the bazaare
> interpretations that you've formulated having read Genesis many times.
Scripture was not written by or for ten year olds. Is THAT your problem?
You're only ten years old? But even a ten-year-old would probably figure
out that a piece that has a talking snake in it and trees with funny names
of deep theological meaning was an allegory, not a history. Unless the
ten-year-old was systematically misled by older people who should know
better than to abuse children in this manner.
>> >> > "honest" scientists falls flat when you can't produce the facts
>> >> > that support observation and repetition. It's delusional of you
>> >> > to maintain such falsehoods.
>> >>
>> >> And even more delusional of you to make up requirements for
>> >> science that are non-existent
>>
>> > Science is a requirement. The definition of science is that it is a
>> > method. And the method has already been explained to you.
>>
>> I know the method. You are adding requirements to it.
> What requirements? Experimentation and observation? Those are
> requirements.
Yes, and they have been met.
>> >> and then accuse those who fail to meet those phony
>> >> requirements of fraud. Stop the sin or go to hell with it. You
>> >> wonder why I excommunicate you? I can't stand the sight of your
>> >> lies in God's name, blasphemer!
>> > Now I know you're false. You're taking on the words written from
>> > movie scripts of atheists who are trying to make Christians look
>> > bad. I
>>
>> YOU are making Christians look bad? Are you an atheist shill? Maybe
>> THAT's what this is all about, eh?
>
> I'm keeping my integrity and sticking to what the text says and not
> what pop evolutionists say.
You don't HAVE any integrity to keep. You threw that out when you decided
to lie about scientists you don't even know. You can only get it back by
repenting the sin. And the more you keep the sin up and brag about it to
your fellow cult members, the harder it will be.
>> > don't know of one of the hundreds of Christians that I've met over
>> > time who have EVER called someone a "blasphemer."
>> Well you don't meet THAT many blasphemers. Usually you meet ignorant
>> people who will, when presented with the facts, retract their support
>> for liars and move on. That's even decent Christian behaviour. But
>> YOU are sitting here demanding a right to keep lying in God's name.
>> That's blasphemy, son, right by the book! You know which book I
>> mean, too. You're just too used to thumping it and not used to
>> obeying it.
> I'm not invoking God and I am not speaking for God. I am telling you
> what the requirements of science are. And you fail at this.
No, YOU fail at it. The biochemical evidence shows that humans and chimps
share a common genetic ancestor. YOU lie about this all the time and cast
aspersions on the scientists who make these findings. You a sinner and
because you do your sinning in God's name, a blasphemer.
>> >> You need to GET some religion before you even START to think about
>> >> handing around whatever it is you're calling religion.
>> >
>> > You had better start telling the truth. You should know the truth
>> > as the truth can set you free.
>>
>> I do know the truth. That is what has got you in such a bad mood.
>> Your lies aren't working here. I am not fooled by your pretend
>> holiness.
>
> I was once a theistic evolutionist so I'm not surprised that you're
> one. But when I was a theistic evolutionists I could never tell you
> that the evidence is there and you know that the evidence is not
> there. A biology teacher friend of mine used to believe the same
If you were a theistic evolutionist, then you did it without ever actually
leaning any biology.
> garbage that you now believe, but I can tell you now that this person
> was smart in abandoning the evolution post. But it wasn't always so.
> I debated this person and tried to explain in detail how theistic
> evolution was a false concept. It was an impossible task consisting of
> outright ignoring what I had to say. One day this person realized that
> evolution was wrong and a false concept and now tries to teach me a
> thing or two. And if you were wise you'd abandon that post too,
> before the onslaught of patriot missles makes it past your bedtime
> hour.
Well, McCoy, it's been nice reading your lies. But don't bother any more.
If you actually STUDIED any real biology, you wouldn't be a "liar for
Jesus" hypocrite now.
Your path leads straight to hell. Get off it.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
catshark
The Second Coming?
>We promise to find the
>missing link. We promise to create life in a laboratory.
If Man was meant to fly, god would've given us wings. Disease is god's judgment
on humans. Humans will never visit other planets.
>Given enough
>time we will promise...
Based on past experience, the people who promise that humans can't do something
have a much worse record than knowledgeable people who think we will be able to
something in the near future.
>
>I'm all promised out, and so are evolutionists. That's why you see
>computerize cartoons of monkey men walking around, as, "if you can't
>find it, make it up."
Well, at least we now know where you get your information about science . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Just when did you start practicing homeopathic thought?
- from Tracy P. Hamilton -
catshark
>"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<GzOka.15872$4P1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
>> > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly is
>> not?
>> > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
>> > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if it
>> > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
>>
>> The sequence you provide below is not the scientific method. The
>> scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
>>
>> Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and
>> experimentation.
>>
>> Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
>>
>> Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based
>> upon a theory.
>
>Good grief. A real big mistaken by an evolutionist. Where did you
>study out of? A hypothesis precedes theory.
>
>J McCoy
Only in grade school explanations of what science is.
What made you stop paying attention in school after puberty?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein -
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
>> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
>> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
>> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
>> > should be easy for humans.
>>
>> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
>>
>> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
>> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
>> humans?
>
> Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> to duplicate.
I know that is what you said. That is exactly what I am
commenting upon. The hubris of it is astounding.
This claim of an ability of humans to reproduce anything
which nature can do of itself is made on the basis of no
argument or reason or thought that I can see.
> If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon,
> then it would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
Can humans make a cloud? Well, yes; in fact, they can.
The vapour trails from jet aircraft are clouds.
Does this mean God does not make clouds?
Chris
386sx
> If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon, then it
> would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
"Ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it
shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
(See .sig for details.)
--
"They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson
AC
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
>> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
>> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
>> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
>> > should be easy for humans.
>>
>> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
>>
>> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
>> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
>> humans?
>
> Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> to duplicate.
>
> If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon, then it
> would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
I fail to see how you can even justify this assertion. Even if God is
responsible, how exactly does that prevent humans from creating life.
Heck, we've already assembled virii, so we're probably within ten or twenty
years of constructing a cell from non-living parts.
Even your religious claims don't make any sense.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
AC
And your evidence for this assertion is...
Ross Langerak
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<GzOka.15872$4P1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > So, you contend that abiogenesis is scientific when it clearly
is
> > not?
> > > You wish to cause others to believe such falsehoods? OK. Let's
> > > subject your mythical ideas to the scientific method, and see if
it
> > > holds up. Just fill in the blanks.
> >
> > The sequence you provide below is not the scientific method. The
> > scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
> >
> > Step 1 is data. Data is the result of observation and
> > experimentation.
> >
> > Step 2 is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
> >
> > Step 3 is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction
based
> > upon a theory.
>
> Good grief. A real big mistaken by an evolutionist. Where did you
> study out of? A hypothesis precedes theory.
>
> J McCoy
How can you make a prediction based upon a theory before you have a
theory?
In science, a hypothesis in not a new or unsupported theory. A theory
is an explanation; a hypothesis is a prediction. One can never become
the other. A hypothesis is directly tested by an experiment. A
theory must explain all of the data. A theory is the result of
inductive reasoning; a hypothesis is the result of deductive
reasoning. The two are separate steps in the method which is repeated
over and over until no one can come up with a new hypothesis, at which
point the theory is still a theory because there is no way to know
that tomorrow someone else won't come up with a new one.
Ferrous Patella
feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
> Man cannot create an earthquake,
Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
snipping
I was going to snip these too, but it's illustrative to show what McCoy has
refused to answer
What "promises"? Despite your pitiful attempt to change the subject, you
havnen't answered my point. Abiogenesis hasn't been abandoned by science.
There is ongoing research on several different scenarios. You were wrong,
once again.
> We promise to find the
> missing link. We promise to create life in a laboratory. Given enough
> time we will promise...
As you have been informed many times by now, there is no single "missing
link". Many of the transitional species between humans and other apes have
been found. What "link" do you think is still missing? I don't know of
anyone who has "promised" to create life in a lab. It may not be possible
to create life in a lab, but that's not to say it's impossible for life to
start at all. Nothing found so far indicates that life cannot start
without a supernatural push.
>
> I'm all promised out, and so are evolutionists. That's why you see
> computerize cartoons of monkey men walking around, as, "if you can't
> find it, make it up."
Your own personal ignorance about science isn't a hindrance to the pursuit
of knowlege. The computer animations were based on a genuine fossil finds,
the behavior and appearance of the animations were based on speculation from
those finds. The creatures themselves were not "made up". Deny the
evidence as you may, but it's genuine.
>
>
> J McCoy
>
>
Note ignored websites showing various lines of research into abiogenesis.
Grinder
Again, if you make no argument _before_ an assertion, it's
nearly impossible to be persuasive.
Lane Lewis
> > >
> > > Observations.
> > >
> > > Hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Observation and repetition.
> > >
> > > Theory.
> > >
> > > More observation and repetition.
> > >
> > > After much confirmation, Law of science (ie.Law of Gravity)
> > >
> > >
> > > J McCoy
> > >
Not Quite
There is a Law of Gravity that is proven mathematically. ( objects attract
each other)
There is Einstein's Theory of gravity that is an explanation of how gravity
works and can never become law. ( space is warped by objects and explains
the Law of gravity )
The Scientific Method
A Hypothesis is a Generalization Based on Some Data or Idea Used to Guide
the Early Stages of Research.
A Hypothesis:
Is Testable.
Predicts Certain Outcomes.
Is Falsifiable.
Can Be Repeatedly Tested By Others.
Law
In Science, a LAW is a name given to a constant phenomenon or process..
Testable.
Predicts Certain Outcomes.
Falsifiable.
Law of Gravity.
Chemical Laws
Pure Substances Exist.
Gold, Silver, Mercury, Lead, etc.
Pure Substances Combine, But Only in Certain Ratios.
Radioactive Substances.
Heated Metal Expands.
Gas Laws.
Heated Gases Expand.
Cooled Gases Contract.
But-why?
There are pure substances -- why?
Why do they combine only in specific ratios?
Gas laws: heat a gas and it expands -- why?
The laws don?t tell us why because they are only descriptions of constant
phenomena.
Theory
In Science, a THEORY Explains and makes sense of Laws, Hypotheses, and
Observations.
Testable.
Predicts Certain Outcomes.
Falsifiable.
"Has Explanatory Power."
Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Theory of Evolution.
The Atomic Theory
Bohr, Rutherford, and other researchers eventually put together an idea:
Matter is made of atoms.
What are these atoms???
The Atomic Theory
Atoms have positive centers of neutrons and protons surrounded by a cloud of
negatively charged electrons.
This is the Atomic Theory.
The Atomic Theory
The Atomic Theory EXPLAINS the laws of chemistry.
A whole bunch of one type of atom is a pure substance.
The atoms combine by sharing or giving up electrons.
How a given atom combines with other atoms is a property of how many
electrons it has to give up or share.
The Atomic Theory
A gas expands when it is heated because the atoms move faster, bump into the
sides of the container and each other, and move outwards.
A gas contracts when cooled for similar but opposite reasons.
The Atomic Theory
Radioactive decay happens because there is an imbalance of neutrons in the
atom.
The atom stabilizes itself by emitting energy and particles at a constant
rate.
Is There Absolute Proof for the Existence of Atoms?
Whether atoms as defined actually exist is irrelevant.
The atom is a CONCEPT created to explain what is observed.
No one will ever see or directly weigh an atom.
Whether or not atoms are facts is not important as far as the EXPLANATORY
POWER of the Atomic Theory goes.
The Power of the Atomic Theory
It can be tested.
It can predict certain outcomes.
It can be falsified.
It explains the chemical laws.
Its results can be duplicated by other researchers.
Biological Laws
Life is Hierarchical.
There is a fossil record.
The fossil record is sequential.
All Life is Cellular.
DNA is found in all cells.
The genetic code is universal (nucleotides in groups of 3).
Biological Laws
All cells have ribosomes.
All cells have membranes.
Fruits come from flowers.
Natural Selection.
What Theory Explains These Questions and Laws?
What idea explains all these laws and questions?
The Theory of Evolution.
Cellular life evolved once long ago by natural methods, and ALL organisms
alive today, as well as those in the fossil record, are descendants of a
single common cellular ancestor.
Descent With Modification.
Evolution
We are all related.
We all share a common ancestor.
Descent with modification from a common ancestor would explain why life is
arranged like a hierarchy.
Descent with modification over a long time would produce a sequential fossil
record.
Evolution
All organisms are not all the same, nor are they all unique, because during
descent from a common ancestor they have modified shared traits.
All living organisms have the same genetic code, DNA, because we are all
related through common ancestry.
Evolution
Therefore, the Theory of Evolution, like the Atomic Theory, EXPLAINS and
UNITES the biological laws and hypotheses:
Evolution is testable.
Evolution predicts certain outcomes.
Evolution is falsifiable.
Evolution explains the biological laws.
Evolution can be (and has been) tested repeatedly by other researchers.
Is There Absolute Proof of Evolution?
No.
Like the Atomic Theory, It Doesn?t Matter if Evolution is a Fact or Proved.
Evolution is a CONCEPT.
This CONCEPT EXPLAINS the Biological Laws and Hypotheses.
Why Evolution?
Because the Theory of Evolution explains and unites all the biological laws
and hypotheses, it has become the central theory of biology.
After almost 150 years since Darwin and Wallace proposed it, the Theory of
Evolution remains the best EXPLANATION for all the biological laws and
hypotheses.
Why Should You Care About Evolution?
Helps Us Understand Many Aspects of Our Health and Human Biology.
Disease evolves -- e.g., AIDS, bacterial infections.
Evolution of Pests and Diseases is Big Money for Pharmaceutical Companies,
Drug Manufacturers, Makers of Insecticides.
Some Spin-offs of the Theory Used in Designing Better Computers.
Absolute Proof in Science?
We Can Never Prove Anything Absolutely in Science.
Scientists only deal with PROBABILITY.
In Summary
All hypotheses, laws, and theories are generalizations.
Absolute proof of their accuracy is impossible.
Science cannot deal with absolute proof or truth.
Science only deals with probability.
Lane
Ross Langerak
I only had a few minutes to respond this morning so I'd like to take
this opportunity to expand on my previous response.
One of the creationist arguments against evolution is that evolution
is just a theory, as if to say that evolution is just speculation. In
response to this, many evolutionists have argued that theories begin
as hypotheses, and only after much testing and confirmation are they
refered to as theories.
There are several problems with this approach. First, creationists
just assert that evolution is just a hypothesis, and we are back where
we started.
Second, this approach shifts the attention away from the evidence and
turns it into an argument over how to label evolution.
Third, how do we establish the transition between hypothesis and
theory? How many tests must be performed before a hypothesis can
become a theory? Ten? A hundred? A whole bunch? How much anomalous
data is allowed? One data point? Ten data points? Ten percent?
What happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional
anomalous results accumulate? Does the theory become a hypothesis
again? Who decides? You? President Bush? The really smart guy you
met on the bus this morning?
The scientific method that I presented does away with these problems.
Any explanation for the data is a theory. There is no quibbling over
what to call it. Some theories are well supported by the data, some
are poorly supported by the data, some are flatly contradicted by the
data, and they are still theories. The only difference between one
theory and another is how well they explain the evidence.
This method also resolves the dispute between inductive versus
deductive reasoning in science. Inductive reasoning, arguing from the
specific to the general, is used to form theories. Deductive
reasoning, arguing from the general to the specific, is used to form
hypotheses. There is no conflict.
Combined with the first assumption of science - that nature follows a
set of laws that are regular and consistent - we can establish the
requirement that experiments be repeatable. This is the requirement
for repeatability in science.
I used to have a link to a webpage that outlined the development of
the scientific method starting with, if I remember correctly, Bacon,
and ending with, again if I remember correctly, Popper. Popper's
method was almost identical to the one I presented, except he used
prediction instead of hypothesis. Some philosophers of science have
suggested that it isn't sufficient to simply make a prediction. They
recognized that the prediction should be specific enough to be
directly tested by an experiment, and that it should include the
information needed to make that prediction based upon a particular
theory. That way, another scientist could take the same information
and derive the same prediction and perform the same experiment to test
it. The term "hypothesis" was used to cover all of this.
If a law fits anywhere into the scientific method, it would have to be
as an observation or data. A natural law is a relationship that has
always been found to be true. It is a generalization of a certain set
of data. A theory may be used to explain the law, which would
indirectly explain the data. A theory, though, will never become a
law. They are different things.
John Wilkins
> "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> >
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote...
> > > "Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> > > > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote...
I'm glad you did, because I was about to take you to task on a few
points.
>
> One of the creationist arguments against evolution is that evolution
> is just a theory, as if to say that evolution is just speculation. In
> response to this, many evolutionists have argued that theories begin
> as hypotheses, and only after much testing and confirmation are they
> refered to as theories.
Evotees, please. Evolutionists are professional evolutionary biologists,
and they are famously unprepared to discuss what counts as the
scientific process :-)
>
> There are several problems with this approach. First, creationists
> just assert that evolution is just a hypothesis, and we are back where
> we started.
What creationists may or may not do is irrelevant to the correct
taxonomy of scientific processes, IMO. It's their comprehension problem
- why make it ours?
>
> Second, this approach shifts the attention away from the evidence and
> turns it into an argument over how to label evolution.
>
> Third, how do we establish the transition between hypothesis and
> theory? How many tests must be performed before a hypothesis can
> become a theory? Ten? A hundred? A whole bunch? How much anomalous
> data is allowed? One data point? Ten data points? Ten percent?
> What happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional
> anomalous results accumulate? Does the theory become a hypothesis
> again? Who decides? You? President Bush? The really smart guy you
> met on the bus this morning?
Typically, hypotheses become theories when they are applicable in a
number of cases other than the one on which they were founded. Theories
become accepted when... err... most specialists in the field accept them
on evidentiary grounds. For example, the Out of Africa hypothesis is a
theory that is widely accepted on paleontological, speciation and
genetic grounds, and which explains biogeographical facts about humans.
The Multiregional Hypothesis is not a theory as such (it posits as yet
occult speciation processes that are not accepted for any other
organism) and it is not widely accepted. However it does allow
scientists to sharpen their ideas (and, to quote Huxley, their beak and
claws) in discussion.
>
> The scientific method that I presented does away with these problems.
> Any explanation for the data is a theory. There is no quibbling over
> what to call it. Some theories are well supported by the data, some
> are poorly supported by the data, some are flatly contradicted by the
> data, and they are still theories. The only difference between one
> theory and another is how well they explain the evidence.
A theory is *at least* an explanation for data. But not all explanations
for data are considered theories. Here is a trivial proof of that:
suppose a theory T explains the set of phenomena P. Then so too does T',
where it is T plus some other theoretical object or process that in no
way affects the objects and processes of T. This can be iterated
indefinitely. We can have T + N "theories" that explain, deductively,
the set P.
Scientists only consider things to be viable theories that explain data
and which offer promising future leads for investigation. Poor theories
are usually referred to as "mistakes".
>
> This method also resolves the dispute between inductive versus
> deductive reasoning in science. Inductive reasoning, arguing from the
> specific to the general, is used to form theories. Deductive
> reasoning, arguing from the general to the specific, is used to form
> hypotheses. There is no conflict.
I agree there is no conflict between the operation of inductive and
deductive reasoning - the conflict is (as we often note in this group)
between the justificatory properties of results arrived at inductively
or deductively. You can justify any valid deduction by noting the truth
of its premises. Inductive reasoning is harder to justify.
But no general distinction such as you make here is true of all science.
If you want to go the Popper/Lakatos route and say that this is how
science *should* behave, fine, but scientists will not listen to you.
And they will continue to do good science. Hypotheses are inductively
arrived at, often in the absence of a formal theoretical model, all the
time.
>
> Combined with the first assumption of science - that nature follows a
> set of laws that are regular and consistent - we can establish the
> requirement that experiments be repeatable. This is the requirement
> for repeatability in science.
This has to do with the intersubjective nature of knowledge - if it
isn't repeatable, then it can't be said to be known by the community, no
matter what an individual scientist might say. But there is no logical
requirement for repeatability, nor need things be exactly repeatable
(think of Newton's measurement of the thermal output of the sun using a
local tawny port as the filter).
>
> I used to have a link to a webpage that outlined the development of
> the scientific method starting with, if I remember correctly, Bacon,
> and ending with, again if I remember correctly, Popper. Popper's
> method was almost identical to the one I presented, except he used
> prediction instead of hypothesis. Some philosophers of science have
> suggested that it isn't sufficient to simply make a prediction. They
> recognized that the prediction should be specific enough to be
> directly tested by an experiment, and that it should include the
> information needed to make that prediction based upon a particular
> theory. That way, another scientist could take the same information
> and derive the same prediction and perform the same experiment to test
> it. The term "hypothesis" was used to cover all of this.
First of all, I reject Popper's view of science and so do nearly all
modern philosophers of science. They may take seriously some of his
specific ideas, but nobody now thinks that falsifiability is the
defining character between science and nonscience.
Second, "hypothesis" is used in many ways. Not all of them are
restricted to the Popperian sense of "conjecture".
Third, "prediction" is ambiguous. If you want to make explanation
model-relative (and I do) then use "implication" or something of that
kind. "Ramification" is a good one - it suggests that a test of a theory
is that it comes up with things we didn't expect, but which turn out to
be true (either in experiment, or by discovery of past events).
>
> If a law fits anywhere into the scientific method, it would have to be
> as an observation or data. A natural law is a relationship that has
> always been found to be true. It is a generalization of a certain set
> of data. A theory may be used to explain the law, which would
> indirectly explain the data. A theory, though, will never become a
> law. They are different things.
Rubbish. Sorry, but this is just presentist claptrap. "Law" was
introduced into science analogically with the medieval idea of "natural
law" being the moral rules of God as expressed in nature. It got applied
to universalisations in a restricted domain. But *any* theory is
expected to have universal applicability in some phenomenal domain. A
law is simply a mathematical rule that can be universally applied to the
relevant cases. A theory is supposed to have universalisations to some
degree in the domain it explains. A fully elaborated theory has
mathematical rules. End of story. Partial theories may not have rules,
and a theory may be restricted to simple or even existential domains,
but "law" is just a term used for generalisations. It is no rarely used.
Nobody speaks, for example, of the Central Law of DNA. Instead they
speak of the Central Dogma, or Molecular Weismannism.
Incidentally, apropos McCoy's claim above, partial hypotheses need not
always precede full theoretical elaboration. Sometimes the theoreticians
happens on most of the outline in some detail in one step.
...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
>
> > Man cannot create an earthquake,
>
>
> Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
Detecting earthquakes, not creating them, I would say?!?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
> > J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> > > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> > > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> > > should be easy for humans.
> >
> > The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
> >
> > Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> > world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> > humans?
>
> Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> to duplicate.
Could you *please* explain this line of reasoning?
There are lots of things which can take place without human or divine
assistance, but which nevertheless *cannot* be duplicated by humans:
earthquakes, tornados and so on.
> If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon, then it
> would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
Next non sequitur.
Why should we be unable to duplicate God's creative processes? After
all, probably He used only the laws of nature, too.
[snip rest]
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> > > You haven't heard anything in regard to this since the Miller-Urey
> > > experiments. Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
> > > genes.
> >
> > As usual, your ignorance betrays you. Abiogenesis is currently being
> > studied, and there are several promising lines of research.
>
> Where have we heard these promises before?
Saying that there are "promising lines of research" is not a promise
itself, it's a statement (of fact).
> We promise to find the missing link.
First, I don't remember that anyone ever promised that. Second, it has
long been found. Only creationists refuse to admit this.
> We promise to create life in a laboratory.
Who promised that, and when?
> Given enough time we will promise...
Nice straw man.
> I'm all promised out,
What does this mean?
> and so are evolutionists. That's why you see
> computerize cartoons of monkey men walking around, as, "if you can't
> find it, make it up."
Err, these "computerized cartoons" were *based* on actual finds. They
weren't made up out of thin air.
>
> J McCoy
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02zze.html
> > http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
> > http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
Did you even bother to look at these links? I bet you didn't.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> > > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature
> can
> > > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then
> it should
> > > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for
> nature, it
> > > should be easy for humans.
> > >
> > > But since it is hard for humans to make life (it can't be
> done as of
> > > yet), then it should be harder for nature, in and of itself,
> to make
> > > life.
> > >
> > > That's just the simple logic of it all.
> >
> > You're missing a step here. The first part leaves the door
> > open for "natural abiogenesis." If it's harder from nature to
> > do it than man, it's still not qualified as impossible.
> >
> > As for "if it's easy for nature, it should be easy for
> > human," -- that's a dubious statement. Thousands of earth
> > quakes happen every year, surely it's relatively "easy for
> > nature" to make these. For humans, well, ask Lex Luthor about
> > that one.
>
> Actually, Tesla claimed that he could create earthquakes. All he
> needed was to create the right frequencies and it was a done deal.
Any evidence that Tesla did indeed ever create an earthquake?
[snip]
> > Here, you just declare that it _will_ become apparent that
> > there's no such thing as "natural abiogenesis," apparently
> > because of poor project management skills.
>
> Naturecannotdoit.
How do you know?
So far, your only argument has been: "if nature could do it, then it
should be easy for man", and that's obvious nonsense.
Ross Langerak
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1ft79y9.1cxl05r6zog9fN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
I agree. I have a degree in physics. I took a course in the
philosophy of science, though it wasn't required for my degree. I
suspect that most scientists have never actually had a formal
introduction to the scientific method.
> >
> > There are several problems with this approach. First,
creationists
> > just assert that evolution is just a hypothesis, and we are back
where
> > we started.
>
> What creationists may or may not do is irrelevant to the correct
> taxonomy of scientific processes, IMO. It's their comprehension
problem
> - why make it ours?
Again, I agree. Let's deal with the evidence.
> >
> > Second, this approach shifts the attention away from the evidence
and
> > turns it into an argument over how to label evolution.
> >
> > Third, how do we establish the transition between hypothesis and
> > theory? How many tests must be performed before a hypothesis can
> > become a theory? Ten? A hundred? A whole bunch? How much
anomalous
> > data is allowed? One data point? Ten data points? Ten percent?
> > What happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional
> > anomalous results accumulate? Does the theory become a hypothesis
> > again? Who decides? You? President Bush? The really smart guy
you
> > met on the bus this morning?
>
> Typically, hypotheses become theories when they are applicable in a
> number of cases other than the one on which they were founded.
How many cases? How many anomalous cases are allowed? Who decides?
All you've done is shift the emphasis from the evidence to cases. Why
not just call them theories to begin with and be done with it?
> Theories
> become accepted when... err... most specialists in the field accept
them
> on evidentiary grounds.
So when a majority of scientists accept a hypothesis, it is suddenly
considered a theory? It's the same hypothesis/theory. The only thing
that has changed is the number of scientist who accept it. How do we
determine how many scientists accept a theory? Do we take a poll of
all scientists? Do we take a representative poll? What if the 50%
mark is within the margin of error? Do we include everyone who has a
degree, or only those scientists who are doing active research? How
do we determine who is a specialist in the field? How do we define
the field? How do we determine that all of the scientists have
accepted the theory on evidentiary grounds? Is the validity of a
theory determined by what a majority of the experts think about it? I
thought the validity of a theory was determined by the evidence. What
if all of the specialists in the field died in a freak train accident?
Would we have a theory or a hypothesis?
I'm sorry, but I don't see your proof. Your conclusion was supposed
to be that not all explanations for data are considered theories.
That may be true, but I don't see it in your conclusion.
>
> Scientists only consider things to be viable theories that explain
data
> and which offer promising future leads for investigation. Poor
theories
> are usually referred to as "mistakes".
How do you decide that they are poor? Who decides that they are
mistakes?
> >
> > This method also resolves the dispute between inductive versus
> > deductive reasoning in science. Inductive reasoning, arguing from
the
> > specific to the general, is used to form theories. Deductive
> > reasoning, arguing from the general to the specific, is used to
form
> > hypotheses. There is no conflict.
>
> I agree there is no conflict between the operation of inductive and
> deductive reasoning - the conflict is (as we often note in this
group)
> between the justificatory properties of results arrived at
inductively
> or deductively.
In the scientific method, deduction and induction don't conflict
because they are never used to perform the same task. Inductive
reasoning is used to form theories. They argue from the specific
(data) to the general (theory). Deductive reasoning is used to form
predictions (hypotheses). They argue from the general (theory) to the
specific (prediction). This is why they don't conflict.
> You can justify any valid deduction by noting the truth
> of its premises. Inductive reasoning is harder to justify.
>
> But no general distinction such as you make here is true of all
science.
> If you want to go the Popper/Lakatos route and say that this is how
> science *should* behave, fine, but scientists will not listen to
you.
> And they will continue to do good science. Hypotheses are
inductively
> arrived at, often in the absence of a formal theoretical model, all
the
> time.
In the scientific method, hypotheses are arrived at deductively. A
specific prediction is made based upon a theory. It is arguing from
the general to the specific.
> >
> > Combined with the first assumption of science - that nature
follows a
> > set of laws that are regular and consistent - we can establish the
> > requirement that experiments be repeatable. This is the
requirement
> > for repeatability in science.
>
> This has to do with the intersubjective nature of knowledge - if it
> isn't repeatable, then it can't be said to be known by the
community, no
> matter what an individual scientist might say. But there is no
logical
> requirement for repeatability, nor need things be exactly repeatable
> (think of Newton's measurement of the thermal output of the sun
using a
> local tawny port as the filter).
If nature follows a set of laws that are regular and consistent, then
any time a particular experiment is performed, we should get the same
result. This is the basis for the requirement for repeatability.
> >
> > I used to have a link to a webpage that outlined the development
of
> > the scientific method starting with, if I remember correctly,
Bacon,
> > and ending with, again if I remember correctly, Popper. Popper's
> > method was almost identical to the one I presented, except he used
> > prediction instead of hypothesis. Some philosophers of science
have
> > suggested that it isn't sufficient to simply make a prediction.
They
> > recognized that the prediction should be specific enough to be
> > directly tested by an experiment, and that it should include the
> > information needed to make that prediction based upon a particular
> > theory. That way, another scientist could take the same
information
> > and derive the same prediction and perform the same experiment to
test
> > it. The term "hypothesis" was used to cover all of this.
>
> First of all, I reject Popper's view of science and so do nearly all
> modern philosophers of science. They may take seriously some of his
> specific ideas, but nobody now thinks that falsifiability is the
> defining character between science and nonscience.
I agree, but my reference to Popper had nothing to do with his views
on falsifiability.
>
> Second, "hypothesis" is used in many ways. Not all of them are
> restricted to the Popperian sense of "conjecture".
As far as I know, Popper didn't use the term "hypothesis" in his
description of the scientific method. As I explained above, that term
was added later. The scientific method does not use the common
definition of hypothesis. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is a
specific prediction based upon a theory.
>
> Third, "prediction" is ambiguous.
Which is exactly why it was replaced by "hypothesis", which is not
ambiguous.
Are you suggesting that it is possible for 50+% of the specialists in
a field to arrive at and accept a theory at exactly the same time?
This would be required by your definition of a theory.
Data, theory, hypothesis, experiment. When faced with unexplained
evidence, scientists try to explain it with a theory. They look at
the implications of the theory and make a prediction based upon the
theory. Then they test the prediction with an experiment. They do
this over and over and over again using exactly the same method. The
method doesn't change depending upon a theory's support from the
evidence or from the scientific community. There's nothing subjective
about the scientific method. No one has to decide whether an
explanation is a theory or a hypothesis. It's clean, efficient, and
practical. Why complicate it?
Ferrous Patella
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9358629254C71...@199.171.54.216>...
>> news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
>> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
>>
>> > Man cannot create an earthquake,
>>
>>
>> Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
>
> Detecting earthquakes, not creating them, I would say?!?
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
>
>
The National Security Agency (USA) does not have must interest in
(natural) earthquakes.
Kermit
> > J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> > > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> > > should be easy for humans.
> >
> >
> > Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> > world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> > humans?
>
> Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> to duplicate.
>
> If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon, then it
> would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > And before I get piled on by outraged Christians; yes, I know
> > that McCoy is a dreadful example of Christian; and I do not
> > think Christians generally are anything like him. Fortunately.
> >
> > Chris
On what do you base the bizarre assumption that if nature did it,
humans could - especially easily?
What reasoning, what arguments, what evidence do yuo have?
--- Kermit
TomS
<1575bfdc.03041...@posting.google.com>, freehand...@hotmail.com
stated..."
[...snip...]
>On what do you base the bizarre assumption that if nature did it,
>humans could - especially easily?
>
>What reasoning, what arguments, what evidence do yuo have?
The reasoning?
"The end justifies the means", as applied to logic: "the
conclusion justifies the premises."
Tom S.
Kermit
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...> news:<b6sj8u$8j8as$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3f355ee.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > > > snipping
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Zoom forward 20 years, and laugh with an Horoshima survivor
> > > > > > about the ridiculous idea of an atomic bomb.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, but the difference here is that that man created the atomic
> > > > > bomb. That proves that man can create complex things. But that bomb
> > > > > was a complicated work of ingenuity.
> > > >
> > > > The bomb was a work of ingenuity, but it's not humans that made it work.
> > > > The theory that uranium 235 atoms are unstable, and that they will split
> > > > under the right conditions is entirely irrelevant to whether or not
> humans
> > > > can bring those conditions to pass. Splitting the atom was possible,
> now or
> > > > before 1945. It was only in the late 30's that it was discovered how
> the
> > > > atom could be split.
> > >
> > > experiments. Scientists have gone on to other projects like mapping
> > > genes.
> >
> > As usual, your ignorance betrays you. Abiogenesis is currently being
> > studied, and there are several promising lines of research.
>
> missing link. We promise to create life in a laboratory. Given enough
> time we will promise...
Poor child. You've waited months and months and months (when did we
promise these things, BTW? When was the deadline?). Have a lollipop
and go watch TV. Let the grownups continue to figure out how things
work. Here's a list of some of our accomplishments so far:
computers, TV, spaceships, eyeglasses, eye surgery, prenatal surgery,
reattaching severed limbs, genetic cure for bubble-boy disease,
microscopes, vaccinations (BTW - it was an insurance agent using
statistics who traced down the source of cholera during an epidemic in
nineteenth-century London - the resulting change to a clean water
supply saved thousands of lives), telescopes, volcano warnings,
hurricane warnings, affordable music for everybody, and better ways to
grow crops.
Say, didn't someone promise the return of Jesus "real soon now" about
2000 years ago?
>
> I'm all promised out, and so are evolutionists. That's why you see
> computerize cartoons of monkey men walking around, as, "if you can't
> find it, make it up."
>
>
> J McCoy
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02zze.html
> > http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
> > http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
> >
> > DJT
--- Kermit
J McCoy
> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
> >> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> >> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> >> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> >> > should be easy for humans.
> >>
> >> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
> >>
> >> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> >> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> >> humans?
> >
> > Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> > clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> > without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> > to duplicate.
>
> I know that is what you said. That is exactly what I am
> commenting upon. The hubris of it is astounding.
>
> This claim of an ability of humans to reproduce anything
> which nature can do of itself is made on the basis of no
> argument or reason or thought that I can see.
There is no hubris behind this. If men reproduced life it would take
thousands of years, if not millions. And even so, the life form would
be primitive. So there's no hubris there, only sweat, anxiety and a
lot of work. But it seems to me you're really on my side, and agree
that nature cannot do it.
>
> > If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon,
> > then it would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
>
> Can humans make a cloud? Well, yes; in fact, they can.
> The vapour trails from jet aircraft are clouds.
>
> Does this mean God does not make clouds?
When you exhale you send a mist up.
Does that help?
J McCoy
>
> Chris
Noelie S. Alito
> news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
>
> > Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9358629254C71...@199.171.54.216>...
> >> news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
> >> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
> >>
> >> > Man cannot create an earthquake,
> >>
> >>
> >> Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
> >
> > Detecting earthquakes, not creating them, I would say?!?
> >
>
> The National Security Agency (USA) does not have must interest in
> (natural) earthquakes.
would. ;-)]
One of my geology instructors remarked that the 1950s marked a
great increase in seismic recording, because the USgov supported
a lot of research which could determine between a natural, fault-generated
(or magmatic) earthquake and an underground nookyooler test.
Of course, the argument about whether we can cause an "earthquake"
depends on how you define it. Humans can certainly cause large
ground tremors, and human devices can distinguish what sort of
energy release caused the tremor.
Noelie
--
"But Lex, my mother lives in Hoboken!" --Miss Teschmacher, _Superman_
John Wilkins
> "Ferrous Patella" <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns935951D887218...@199.171.54.215...
> > news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
> > feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
> >
> > > Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<Xns9358629254C71...@199.171.54.216>...
> > >> news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
> > >> feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
> > >>
> > >> > Man cannot create an earthquake,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
> > >
> > > Detecting earthquakes, not creating them, I would say?!?
> > >
> <sigsnip>
> >
> > The National Security Agency (USA) does not have must interest in
> > (natural) earthquakes.
> [A nit: If the earthquake occurred in a strategically important area, it
> would. ;-)]
>
> One of my geology instructors remarked that the 1950s marked a great
> increase in seismic recording, because the USgov supported a lot of
> research which could determine between a natural, fault-generated (or
> magmatic) earthquake and an underground nookyooler test.
So we have a record of more earthquakes than before. hence, seismic
recording causes earthquakes, QED.
>
> Of course, the argument about whether we can cause an "earthquake"
> depends on how you define it. Humans can certainly cause large
> ground tremors, and human devices can distinguish what sort of
> energy release caused the tremor.
I'm good, but not *that* good...
SortingItOut
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6vpd7$9b12s$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
<snip>
> > As usual, your ignorance betrays you. Abiogenesis is currently being
> > studied, and there are several promising lines of research.
>
> Where have we heard these promises before? We promise to find the
> missing link. We promise to create life in a laboratory. Given enough
> time we will promise...
>
> I'm all promised out,
What a pathetic, defeatist attitude. Are you all promised out on a
cure for cancer too? What about fusion power, world peace,
eradicating starvation and disease, and genarally improving our
quality of life? Fortunately, our species contains many individuals
with a positive, can-do attitude toward achievement and discovery.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1ft79y9.1cxl05r6zog9fN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
...
> > Typically, hypotheses become theories when they are applicable in a
> > number of cases other than the one on which they were founded.
>
> How many cases? How many anomalous cases are allowed? Who decides?
> All you've done is shift the emphasis from the evidence to cases. Why
> not just call them theories to begin with and be done with it?
Well largely because I am trying to capture the practice of scientists
rather than to force them to fit some normative concept imposed on them.
I treat science as its own domain, answerable to none on methodological
matters but itself.
>
> > Theories become accepted when... err... most specialists in the field
> > accept them on evidentiary grounds.
>
> So when a majority of scientists accept a hypothesis, it is suddenly
> considered a theory? It's the same hypothesis/theory. The only thing
> that has changed is the number of scientist who accept it. How do we
> determine how many scientists accept a theory? Do we take a poll of
> all scientists? Do we take a representative poll? What if the 50%
> mark is within the margin of error? Do we include everyone who has a
> degree, or only those scientists who are doing active research? How
> do we determine who is a specialist in the field? How do we define
> the field? How do we determine that all of the scientists have
> accepted the theory on evidentiary grounds? Is the validity of a
> theory determined by what a majority of the experts think about it? I
> thought the validity of a theory was determined by the evidence. What
> if all of the specialists in the field died in a freak train accident?
> Would we have a theory or a hypothesis?
The way theories become accepted is via consensus, convention, battle
and victory, politicking, control over journals, grants and positions,
and generally by individual scientists becoming convinced of the
correctness of the hypothesis in terms of known evidence. There is no
simple criterion of "scientificness", nor will there ever be. It is a
mistake to think that a historical process can be captured by a static
definition. And make no mistake, science is a historical process, not a
sub specie eternitatis ideal.
>
...
> >
> > A theory is *at least* an explanation for data. But not all explanations
> > for data are considered theories. Here is a trivial proof of that:
> > suppose a theory T explains the set of phenomena P. Then so too does T',
> > where it is T plus some other theoretical object or process that in no
> > way affects the objects and processes of T. This can be iterated
> > indefinitely. We can have T + N "theories" that explain, deductively,
> > the set P.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see your proof. Your conclusion was supposed
> to be that not all explanations for data are considered theories.
> That may be true, but I don't see it in your conclusion.
OK, I was too telegraphic, I see. My point is that you can indefinitely
add entities and processes to any single theory without making it less
explanatory if it was explanatory in the first place. There are a
literal infinity of "theories" - but at some (undefined) point, even the
most baroque scientist is going to say that the T^n is not a scientific
theory and hence not an explanation.
>
> >
> > Scientists only consider things to be viable theories that explain data
> > and which offer promising future leads for investigation. Poor theories
> > are usually referred to as "mistakes".
>
> How do you decide that they are poor? Who decides that they are
> mistakes?
Who decides? The scientific community for that discipline - when
disciplines collide, it takes a *lot* longer to sort things out.
This is a Wittgensteinian notion of scientific rules, by the way, if it
helps you to locate the argument.
>
> > >
> > > This method also resolves the dispute between inductive versus
> > > deductive reasoning in science. Inductive reasoning, arguing from the
> > > specific to the general, is used to form theories. Deductive
> > > reasoning, arguing from the general to the specific, is used to form
> > > hypotheses. There is no conflict.
> >
> > I agree there is no conflict between the operation of inductive and
> > deductive reasoning - the conflict is (as we often note in this group)
> > between the justificatory properties of results arrived at inductively
> > or deductively.
>
> In the scientific method, deduction and induction don't conflict
> because they are never used to perform the same task. Inductive
> reasoning is used to form theories. They argue from the specific
> (data) to the general (theory). Deductive reasoning is used to form
> predictions (hypotheses). They argue from the general (theory) to the
> specific (prediction). This is why they don't conflict.
That's a little typological. Scientists use both inductive and deductive
logics all the time at every step of the process. They inductively make
predictions and deductive work out the ramifications of established
theories. I do not think you can force scientific practice in all its
variety into this sort of Procrustean Bed.
>
> > You can justify any valid deduction by noting the truth
> > of its premises. Inductive reasoning is harder to justify.
> >
> > But no general distinction such as you make here is true of all science.
> > If you want to go the Popper/Lakatos route and say that this is how
> > science *should* behave, fine, but scientists will not listen to you.
> > And they will continue to do good science. Hypotheses are inductively
> > arrived at, often in the absence of a formal theoretical model, all the
> > time.
>
> In the scientific method, hypotheses are arrived at deductively. A
> specific prediction is made based upon a theory. It is arguing from
> the general to the specific.
Again, this is prescriptive - it is not descriptive of what scientists
actually *do*. Now if that is what you want to do, that is fine - people
have been prescribing scientific rules for a long time, ever since
Francis Bacon, in fact, but at every step in the evolution of science,
good science has ignored or transgressed that. I refer to treat science,
as I said above - as a historical process lacking clear essence.
>
> > >
> > > Combined with the first assumption of science - that nature follows a
> > > set of laws that are regular and consistent - we can establish the
> > > requirement that experiments be repeatable. This is the requirement
> > > for repeatability in science.
> >
> > This has to do with the intersubjective nature of knowledge - if it
> > isn't repeatable, then it can't be said to be known by the community, no
> > matter what an individual scientist might say. But there is no logical
> > requirement for repeatability, nor need things be exactly repeatable
> > (think of Newton's measurement of the thermal output of the sun using a
> > local tawny port as the filter).
>
> If nature follows a set of laws that are regular and consistent, then
> any time a particular experiment is performed, we should get the same
> result. This is the basis for the requirement for repeatability.
Sure, but this is not an a priori necessity *in science*. Scientists do
not need to be instrumentalists, or relaists, or idealists, or
inductivists - they are all of these things (not in the one individual).
What makes it science is that it is adopted by a successful scientific
community.
>
> > >
> > > I used to have a link to a webpage that outlined the development of
> > > the scientific method starting with, if I remember correctly, Bacon,
> > > and ending with, again if I remember correctly, Popper. Popper's
> > > method was almost identical to the one I presented, except he used
> > > prediction instead of hypothesis. Some philosophers of science have
> > > suggested that it isn't sufficient to simply make a prediction. They
> > > recognized that the prediction should be specific enough to be
> > > directly tested by an experiment, and that it should include the
> > > information needed to make that prediction based upon a particular
> > > theory. That way, another scientist could take the same information
> > > and derive the same prediction and perform the same experiment to test
> > > it. The term "hypothesis" was used to cover all of this.
> >
> > First of all, I reject Popper's view of science and so do nearly all
> > modern philosophers of science. They may take seriously some of his
> > specific ideas, but nobody now thinks that falsifiability is the
> > defining character between science and nonscience.
>
> I agree, but my reference to Popper had nothing to do with his views
> on falsifiability.
Fine - I was just clearing the air.
>
> >
> > Second, "hypothesis" is used in many ways. Not all of them are
> > restricted to the Popperian sense of "conjecture".
>
> As far as I know, Popper didn't use the term "hypothesis" in his
> description of the scientific method. As I explained above, that term was
> added later. The scientific method does not use the common definition of
> hypothesis. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is a specific
> prediction based upon a theory.
>
> >
> > Third, "prediction" is ambiguous.
>
> Which is exactly why it was replaced by "hypothesis", which is not
> ambiguous.
Sure it was. When Newton said "hypotheses non fingo" he was equivocating
- he made many hypothetical explanations. When laplace said to Napoleon,
"Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis" he was being ambiguous about
the nature of hypothesis (is it *really* a deductive inference that
angels keep planets stable in Newtonian orbits?).
I am afraid you are being anhistorical here. "Hypothesis" has a history
that goes back deep into the middle ages (as "law" does). Concepts have
histories, you know. They are not timeless abstractions any more than
species are.
No it isn't. And 50% is not some magical number. It depends on the
professional standing of individuals in a discpline.
>
> Data, theory, hypothesis, experiment. When faced with unexplained
> evidence, scientists try to explain it with a theory. They look at
> the implications of the theory and make a prediction based upon the
> theory. Then they test the prediction with an experiment. They do
> this over and over and over again using exactly the same method. The
> method doesn't change depending upon a theory's support from the
> evidence or from the scientific community. There's nothing subjective
> about the scientific method. No one has to decide whether an
> explanation is a theory or a hypothesis. It's clean, efficient, and
> practical. Why complicate it?
Because it fails to account for *actual* science. There is something
deeply wrong about a proscription that says "only *this* is science" but
which excludes much *actual* science. Philosophers and historians of
science have wrestled with this since Whewell, and the consensus now is
that we should take science as it is, not as we would like it to be for
simplicity's sake.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
Matt Silberstein
<mail1...@pop.net>:
>news:4bb90092.03040...@posting.google.com by
>feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de (Bjoern Feuerbacher):
>
>> Man cannot create an earthquake,
>
>
>Um...just what is the NSA doing with all those seismographs?
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0118883
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
catshark
(Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote:
>mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns93567B1B047D4...@142.77.1.194>...
>
>[snip lots of nonsense]
>
>
>> IF man CANNOT DO IT,
>> NATURECANNOTDOIT.
>
>Man cannot create an earthquake, nature can. Hence your stupid claim
>is false.
Well, actually we can . . . sort of . . .
http://www.scecdc.scec.org/Module/footnt04.html
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
SortingItOut
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e94...@news.qut.edu.au>...
> > J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
> > >> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> > >> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> > >> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> > >> > should be easy for humans.
> > >>
> > >> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
> > >>
> > >> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> > >> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> > >> humans?
> > >
> > > Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> > > clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> > > without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> > > to duplicate.
Actually, hubris is not a bad description. Above, you use the word
"fact" in describing your claim. First, you have no evidence to back
up your premise that if nature alone did abiogenesis, then it was
"easy" for nature. Then, you have no basis for your conclusion that
(if your premise was valid) it would have been easy for humans. How
can you call any of this a "fact"???
> >
> > I know that is what you said. That is exactly what I am
> > commenting upon. The hubris of it is astounding.
> >
> > This claim of an ability of humans to reproduce anything
> > which nature can do of itself is made on the basis of no
> > argument or reason or thought that I can see.
>
> There is no hubris behind this. If men reproduced life it would take
> thousands of years, if not millions.
Then here you claim that it will take thousands of years (at least)
for men to do it. What is this based on? Have the last hundred years
not impressed you at all? Can you visualize what our capabilities
will be 2000 years from now?
> And even so, the life form would
> be primitive. So there's no hubris there, only sweat, anxiety and a
> lot of work. But it seems to me you're really on my side, and agree
> that nature cannot do it.
>
>
> >
> > > If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon,
Then here you "insist" that God created the world. Again, no
evidence, and you don't even seem to demand the same level of science
that you did in your opening post in this thread in order to back up
this insistence.
> > > then it would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
And then now you claim that if your insistence is true, then it would
be "impossible" for men to duplicate it. What is THIS based on???
You really need to get a grip on these wild, baseless assertions. If
you have a case to make, please make it in a clear, thorough manner.
Or at least stick to one line of reasoning so that we can all explore
it together and see where it leads. Perhaps we could start with the
claim that if nature alone created life, then it was "easy". What do
you think?
Ross Langerak
> Ross Langerak <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:1ft79y9.1cxl05r6zog9fN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> ...
> > > Typically, hypotheses become theories when they are applicable
in a
> > > number of cases other than the one on which they were founded.
> >
> > How many cases? How many anomalous cases are allowed? Who
decides?
> > All you've done is shift the emphasis from the evidence to cases.
Why
> > not just call them theories to begin with and be done with it?
>
> Well largely because I am trying to capture the practice of
scientists
> rather than to force them to fit some normative concept imposed on
them.
> I treat science as its own domain, answerable to none on
methodological
> matters but itself.
When faced with unexplained data, scientist try to explain the data
with a theory. They then make predictions based upon that theory, and
test them with experiments. This is what scientists do. I don't have
to force them to do this. If you are trying to capture the practice
of scientists, this is it.
You seem to be missing the point. All of these questions, these
problems, go away if we simply refer to any scientific explanation for
the data as a theory. Then there is no need to take polls, or decide
who is qualified, or decide who is qualified to decide who is
qualified. The only concern is how well the theory explains the
evidence. This is really all that scientists are concerned with
anyway.
Who decides who represents the scientific community? And since when
was the validity of a theory determined by the opinions of experts?
Isn't the validity of a theory dependent entirely upon the evidence?
Can you give me an example of using inductive reasoning to make a
specific prediction based upon a theory? I have no idea how you would
argue from the general to the specific using reasoning that goes from
the specific to the general.
> and deductive work out the ramifications of established
> theories.
Ramifications or consequences are predictions based upon a theory.
This is clearly deductive reasoning.
> I do not think you can force scientific practice in all its
> variety into this sort of Procrustean Bed.
When we form theories, we are forming general explanations based upon
specific information. That is inductive reasoning. I'm not forcing
science to use inductive reasoning, that's simply what it is.
Likewise, when we make predictions, we make those (specific)
predictions base upon a theory. This is deductive reasoning. I'm not
forcing science to use deductive reasoning, that's simply what it is.
When I use the term "hypothesis", I am using it to mean a specific
prediction based upon a theory. This is, almost by definition,
deductive reasoning. Again, when a scientist makes a prediction based
upon a theory, they are using deductive reasoning. I am not
prescribing that they use deductive reasoning, it is what they are
actually doing.
Actually, the first assumption of science is necessary if we are to do
science. Science just doesn't work if nature isn't regular and
consistent. Considering how successful science has been though, it
seems like a very good assumption.
Both of these examples use the common definition of hypothesis. They
are not using the scientific definition which is a specific prediction
based upon a theory. So why do you think that my use of "hypothesis"
was ambiguous?
> I am afraid you are being anhistorical here. "Hypothesis" has a
history
> that goes back deep into the middle ages (as "law" does). Concepts
have
> histories, you know. They are not timeless abstractions any more
than
> species are.
And part of that history is that it is used to mean a specific
prediction based upon a theory. If you would prefer, we could return
to Popper's description and just use prediction in place of
hypothesis. In this case, the term hypothesis is never used in the
scientific method.
You said, "Theories become accepted when... err... most specialists in
the field accept them on evidentiary grounds." Presumably, this was
intended to establish a criteria for judging whether an explanation is
a theory or a hypothesis (common definition).
The scientific method is not a complete description of science. It is
a tool, like peer review is a tool and publication is a tool. The
scientific method that I described fits very well what real scientists
actually do. When faced with unexplained data, they try to explain
it. That explanation is a theory. They make predictions based upon
that theory, and then test those predictions with experiments. What
have I failed to account for?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> > J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.qut.edu.au>...
> > >> J McCoy <mc...@sunset.net> wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >> > What I meant was that if abiogenesis could work, (that nature can
> > >> > create life without human or supernatural assistance), then it should
> > >> > be an easy task for people to make life. If it's easy for nature, it
> > >> > should be easy for humans.
> > >>
> > >> The mind boggling hubris of this amazes me.
> > >>
> > >> Why on Earth would a Christian think that all phenomena of a
> > >> world created and ordered by God could be easily reproduced by
> > >> humans?
> > >
> > > Do actually read my writings? If so, you must be half asleep. I
> > > clearly spelled out the fact that if abiogenesis could take place
> > > without human or divine assistance, then it should be easy for humans
> > > to duplicate.
> >
> > I know that is what you said. That is exactly what I am
> > commenting upon. The hubris of it is astounding.
> >
> > This claim of an ability of humans to reproduce anything
> > which nature can do of itself is made on the basis of no
> > argument or reason or thought that I can see.
>
> There is no hubris behind this. If men reproduced life it would take
> thousands of years, if not millions.
Why?
> And even so, the life form would be primitive.
How do you know?
And what's the problem with this?
> So there's no hubris there, only sweat, anxiety and a
> lot of work.
So suddenly you admit that man *could* do it?
> But it seems to me you're really on my side, and agree
> that nature cannot do it.
Where did you get this from???
> > > If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon,
> > > then it would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
> >
> > Can humans make a cloud? Well, yes; in fact, they can.
> > The vapour trails from jet aircraft are clouds.
> >
> > Does this mean God does not make clouds?
>
> When you exhale you send a mist up.
What has this to do with a cloud?
> Does that help?
No. It only shows again that you have no grasp of the real world.
Oh, and BTW, you haven't addressed most of the counterexamples to your
silly claim "if man can't do it, then nature can't do it" so far...
Matt Silberstein
<rlan...@earthlink.net>:
[snip]
>You seem to be missing the point. All of these questions, these
>problems, go away if we simply refer to any scientific explanation for
>the data as a theory. Then there is no need to take polls, or decide
>who is qualified, or decide who is qualified to decide who is
>qualified. The only concern is how well the theory explains the
>evidence. This is really all that scientists are concerned with
>anyway.
All you have done is move the problem from "theory" to
"valid/accepted theory". Scientists don't much care for theories
which do a poor job at explaining the data or theories which have
since been rejected. (Yes, sometimes old theories get resurrected
or people find inspiration in them. That is a different subject.)
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
<rlan...@earthlink.net>:
[snip]
>The scientific method that I presented does away with these problems.
>Any explanation for the data is a theory. There is no quibbling over
>what to call it. Some theories are well supported by the data, some
>are poorly supported by the data, some are flatly contradicted by the
>data, and they are still theories. The only difference between one
>theory and another is how well they explain the evidence.
You can certainly do this. And if you are clear in your
presentation there will be no problem. But often people will
confuse "scientific theory" with "valid evidence supported
scientific theory". It depends on context and audience. That said
I will repeat my presentation: to the extent that creationism is
science it has been refuted, to the extent that it has not been
refuted it is not science.
Chris Ho-Stuart
My position is that nature is subtle and wonderful, and yet
yet comphrensible. The surprising comprehensibility of nature
has been noted by many. There is no obvious reason why we should
be able to find good mathemtical descriptions of how nature works;
yet we do. Einstein remarked upon this.
"How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product
of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably
adapted to the objects of reality?"
However, understanding how a thing occurs naturally does not
mean it can be reproduced by humans. We can do many things, and
yet we have only scratched the surface of what nature can do.
The hubris is in the presumption that if nature can do, then
of course man can do it.
You have never even defended this absurd assertion.
>> > If God created the world, and that is what I'm insisting upon,
>> > then it would be impossible for man to duplicate abiogenesis.
>>
>> Can humans make a cloud? Well, yes; in fact, they can.
>> The vapour trails from jet aircraft are clouds.
>>
>> Does this mean God does not make clouds?
>
> When you exhale you send a mist up.
>
> Does that help?
It helps me. Not you.
Clouds form naturally. Does this mean God does NOT make clouds?
Chris
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1ft81cu.4fb7rqqb5xbdN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > Ross Langerak <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
....
> > > Data, theory, hypothesis, experiment. When faced with unexplained
> > > evidence, scientists try to explain it with a theory. They look at
> > > the implications of the theory and make a prediction based upon the
> > > theory. Then they test the prediction with an experiment. They do
> > > this over and over and over again using exactly the same method. The
> > > method doesn't change depending upon a theory's support from the
> > > evidence or from the scientific community. There's nothing subjective
> > > about the scientific method. No one has to decide whether an
> > > explanation is a theory or a hypothesis. It's clean, efficient, and
> > > practical. Why complicate it?
> >
> > Because it fails to account for *actual* science. There is something
> > deeply wrong about a proscription that says "only *this* is science" but
> > which excludes much *actual* science. Philosophers and historians of
> > science have wrestled with this since Whewell, and the consensus now is
> > that we should take science as it is, not as we would like it to be for
> > simplicity's sake.
>
> The scientific method is not a complete description of science. It is
> a tool, like peer review is a tool and publication is a tool. The
> scientific method that I described fits very well what real scientists
> actually do. When faced with unexplained data, they try to explain
> it. That explanation is a theory. They make predictions based upon
> that theory, and then test those predictions with experiments. What
> have I failed to account for?
Look, I'm not saying that you are not correct sometimes, nor even that
you are not correct many times or even most of the time. What I am
saying is that you are not correct *all* of the time. Sometimes
scientists do not follow the established typology. And Darwin is one of
those who did not. He did not inductively arrive at the theory of
evolution by natural selection. He came upon it as a flash of
inspiration after working it over, consciously and unconsciously, for a
long period (about 5 years if we can trust his diary and notebooks). The
inductive apparatus was added in later to try to assuage the
philosophical concerns of Whewell and Herschel. His predictions were not
deductive inferences; they were qualitative and inductive - we will see
transitionals, but he could not say what they would exactly be.
Both Darwin and Wallace thought up the explanation and went looking for
supporting data. Examples in science could be multiplied. A text like
Chalmers will give them.
Philosophers of science have traditionally had a rather cavalier
attitude to actual science. For example, when Lakatos was explaining the
discovery of the Bohrian atom and Quantum Mechanics, he made two
entirely contradictory comments. One was that "conventional accounts ...
prefer to falsify history" (p168). The other, some 40 pages earlier, is
the infamous "rational reconstruction" footnote, in which he gives the
sequence of Bohr's thinking, and then footnotes "This is a rational
reconstruction" (p146, n2) because Bohr did *not* follow Lakatos'
typology of rationality.
It is important that philosophers learn *from* the actual methodologies
of science, and include the ways in which good science gets done.
1. Chalmers, A. F. 1999. What is this thing called science? An
assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods. 3rd ed.
St Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.
2. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsficication and the methodology of scientific
research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, edited by
I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. London: Cambridge University Press.