You're assuming that the life has to exist per the requirements for life on Earth. You've heard of extremophiles, no?
I never said it wasn't a rarity. At least, it definitely is considering what we're able to observe. But considering how large the universe is, and multiverse theory, the idea that life doesn't exist anywhere else than Earth is pretty foolhardy.
Yes, but now you're entering theories that don't necessarily have any more hard evidence of their correctitude than the presence of a creator.
Sure there is. We're talking about probability here. Is it more likely for a creator to decide to grant life to a planet? Or is it more likely that life already exists on other planets? There are any number of theories regarding moons in our own solar system having the potential to harbor life, who knows what else could be out there?
Correctitude is not a word.
This is not correct. Earth like planets are actually incredibly common. There are three candidates for life in our solar system alone. Titan, Europa, and Enceladus all have permanently available liquid in large supply, permanently available energy sources, and all of the chemistry that makes up life. Whether or not they have life is an open question. We know that the conditions necessary for life exist on all three worlds. There is hard evidence that life could exist on any or all. Kepler and Earth based telescopes have discovered enough Earth like extra solar that they are considered statistically commonplace. Life is probably a relatively common occurrence. This can be said using concrete, observable data, gathered by professionals, using repeatable, peer reviewed processes. The existence of god is not fit to be compared.
No, they work as if science is aiming to insult God, "so we evolved from monkeys?" and is BSing and has no concrete evidence, like fake fossils. In most cases, a lot of Creationists (and many atheists even) don't understand science at all. Or the theories or explanations, as Introspective just proved by comparing mixing cellphone parts to mixing components that may have created life.
But the point is, the Bible was changed. If it's true or should be taken as facts, it should not have been changed and modified. Besides, the Bibles are man made, and I'm sure a group of people worked together to make up stories and write them down however they saw fit.
There is no stereotype here, the problem is that your arguments are not sound or good. Your mentioning of Haldane's Dilemma and using it hurts your arguments because that "theory" is very narrow and consists of feeble attempts to discredit evolution.
The thing is, while science is still learning, it has established many theories as facts or laws by carrying out experiments and verifying those theories. Unlike religion, it wasn't a matter of "oh hey, the best scientist in the world claimed this, let's just believe him!" You have numerous of scientists conducting experiments and trying to get the same results.
Depends on what you follow that up with.
Does not make it a fact or law though. Many biologists can change their views if there's a new finding that life could have formed on its own by this way or that. Urey-Miller Experiment already proved amino acids could form through the conditions on Earth that would kill us.
It can be tested, though even if the scientists do find a way to create life, it doesn't really negate the idea that God may have created life.
That is a horrible comparison. A cellphone is a man made material that has to be connected together by a machine or man to be created. An amino acid is an organic compound that was in fact created by Urey and Miller setting up the conditions to how it was on Earth billions of years ago. It is not a complex being like plants and animals are.
Maybe physics played a huge part, but it has more to do with chemistry (or biochemistry). Again, it has to do with the volatility of Earth back then along with the gases (abundance of gases that would be poisonous to us). In time since then, Earth has calmed down, and the plants and algae have consumed carbon dioxide to produce lots of oxygen. I do not know if this is an ideal condition for life to form now.
Er, it does not.
Wikipedia can be reliable as long as you check the sources, which I hope kkck did. Wikipedia is also far more likely to be unbiased than the websites you provided.
These conditions do not have to be met. They only have to be met for current life on Earth to survive, bar the bacteria that can survive under conditions that would kill most other life. I remember reading how bacterias were surviving in outer space.
correctitude There goes a lot of your credibility... Typing things in on Google goes a long way.
M3J your arguments are sound and plausible, except against the wrong argument. What you are countering was not the intended interpretation of what I stated. I need to know what needs to happen to make these things clear. I need to know where my ambiguity is, because right now I'm trying to show you that there is another way to interpret our presence on earth.
I get the impression you are missing a bit of the point of science. A scientific fact is basically a measurement. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been validated with all the rigor science requires and has not been refuted. A scientific theory is by definition falsifiable (which is where most variations of creationism and pseudoscience fail as science), it can be adjusted or discarded depending on new evidence which means that by definition it is subject to doubt. It is not the same as a regular fact. Skepticism is the very foundation of science. Science does not go by absolutes, it goes by available evidence and what has been observed and tested so far. That is not to say we doubt our facts as you suggest. Evolution as a whole has a somewhat special position. Species changing over time is something that has been so overwhelmingly validated with such a huge amount of evidence and scrutiny that no new findings are likely to alter it significantly. From a scientific perspective evolution has been as validated as the earth going around the sun.
And that is understandable. Evolution does have support to its claims, but I personally do not agree with its foundation. This does not mean I specifically doubt what evolution knows now, but I will doubt any conclusion until I strongly agree with its foundation. I do believe that mutations happen and it is very scientifically reasonable to accept them as responsible for the differences that occur between species. But I do not believe life is the result of an undirected process.
It feels like you keep saying this in every other post you make. Which evidence speaks against life forming through natural processes? Anything other than Haldane's dilemma, which is regarded in completely opposite ways among creationists and the scientific community?
No one uses that word. Stop being so melodramatic and condesecending. Whether that's on Merriam-Webster's website or not has nothing to do with the topic and has no bearing on someone's credibility. Thanks.
What do you mean that only statistics show that science is still growing?
Sorry - you lost me. If not all the bible is true, then yes that doesn't really support creationism at all...
Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't think that evolution occurs without genetic changes do you?
I am not sure that the "many biologists" you talk about actually are all that many.
Was someone arguing against this? Jesus was a Jew after all... As far as I remember, Jews do follow the old testament...
I think you are confusing 'fact' with 'possible'.
Ignoring the fact that those 2 things really are incomparable.
But it can not be tested with the same principles- unless a watch can adapt to its environment and self replicate?
If we had the timescale required sure.
Not yet I am afraid.
I am afraid to see that I do not see where your idea comes from.
But the scientific method shows no such thing.
I will let kkck address his own questions/statements.
Well, as I said, it sounds like you are missing the point. If you disagree with the foundation I would simply suggest you read about it without a creationist perspective. Again, evolution is the single most widely validated scientific theory to date. No other subject has ever been so widely studied, validated, and overwhelmingly supported by overwhelming amounts of hard evidence. The sheer amount of scrutiny and peer review behind this across multiple fields is simply baffling. There is a reason I used the comparison "as validated as the earth going around the sun". As things stand you "disagreeing" (not that evolution is an opinion to simply disagree with) with the foundation of evolution is pretty much the same as denying the earth is in orbit around the sun.
That is just one of many things which he is assuming.
I would really love to see where you went for this research - I am totally serious here. Whoever said this really was pulling numbers out of their hat. They would have no way to even begin to calculate this number...
Biggest fallacy here is that you're using Earth as basis of comparison. According to theories, when life first arose on Earth, the planet was completely unsuitable for life that exists today, and it was due to those living organisms that the planet slowly because a habitable place for majority of the current animals.
I see more religious people as being close minded because despite evidence and arguments, they refuse to even consider the possibility of evolution. Then there are those more open minded religious people who can agree there's a chance that God created first forms of life, and evolution took its course.
Evolution is a scientific theory that can be accepted by atheists, agnostics, and even theists. There's also reasonable proof and evidence beyond doubt that evolution occurred.
If God really wants people to believe in him, why not appear before everyone and tell them to believe in him? Why not create another mass flood to wipe out those who sin or do not believe in him?
Evolution has been observed as well, like when Darwin looked at the differences in the appearance of beaks amongst finches and how they used it. Evolution can be observable and visible, hence why we are able to make reasonable deductions. The theory of Creationism is unable to do that, at all, nor has anyone ever been able to answer how God was created, or the double standard of claiming something must have caused Big Bang, but God always existed.
Inductive reasoning based on what has been observed, and numerous things have been observed. There are also sound theories that make sense.
It is not hypocritical at all because unlike evolution, there is no evidence or proof or anything observable whatsoever that God created everything, and the only thing people use is faith. Gotta have faith that God did it all.
It can be.
Say what you mean, then.
That's funny - because evolutionists have quite a lot of evidence to back up their claims. Would be nice to see any from the creationists.
As I said, not possible to prove or disprove - that is why I didn't bother to try.
I will happily await someone finding a way to disprove that life could form through natural processes then.
Not the scientific community, but The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.
But quite a bit of evidence that various steps along the way can.
This, I am afraid, highlights your extreme lack of understanding about what you are talking about.
When you refer to the 'scientific method' you refer to it incorrectly 99% of the time.
I actually looked up the Origin of Life Foundation, Inc.
Which, as we have already established prior, you have no knowledge of how to use/what it is/how to form a hypothesis (or what is required in the formation of one)...
You posted (yet another) a badly disguised example of the watchmaker analogy - you also forgot to point out/realise that few scientists actually agree with this analogy at all. How it doesn't work and how their main example (the flagellum - which you so kindly talked about below) falls to subdivision of working components.
You are talking about irreducible complexity. I am afraid to tell you that this, if it does exist anywhere, does not fit with the flagellum.
So you are proposing that a current lack of an explanation for natural processes resulting in life opens up the possibility of there being a designer? Even if that actually qualified as a rational argument you would first need empiric evidence of said creator. However that is simply not plausible, you'd actually need to redefine the concept of science in order to fit that in. There is and there can't be such a thing, it will never meet the specific requirements of science. There is no such thing as "theory of intelligent design", at least not with theory meaning "scientific theory". You have two possibilities here. Life forming via natural processes (which has not been proven to be impossible as you claim) or life forming via intelligent design. On the first it is conceptually plausible to make hypothesis which could be validated enough to make it to theories. On the second one it would be a conceptual impossibility. It is true there isn't an accepted explanation for the origin of life just yet however what you propose does not meet and cannot meet the basic requirements to be considered science.
Life and complex machinery are not the same, the analogy is irrelevant. Then again, that has been pointed out before and you are clearly ignoring that. In a scientific context the watchmaker analogy is not even falsifiable, it does not even meet a basic requirement for it to be considered scientific. Its an analogy, its not even a proper argument...
Well, if you actually research the topic rather than do quick searches on sites that are biased against the theory of evolution, you can see that there is evidence that life could form by natural processes. However, I can understand the difficulty of realizing that fact because you think it may disprove the Creationism theory.
Stop. You need to understand what you're comparing before you even compare them.