The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[sharkman]

So, where does that leave the alien theory, known as directed panspermia? You are still going with the crackpot view? Well, you may not like it, but I don't think you speak for the scientific community, show me they think he's a crackpot or are you out of step with them?

You simply do not have anything better than goddidit. Crystals and aliens and billions of years of evolution is no less outlandish than ID.

And I freely admit I am not a scientist, which is pretty obvious, but molecules and amino acids and proteins growing by themselves is the point I was making, and its a pretty wild theory. The problem with scientists is the same with any other effort by man. He is capable of picking sides with the religious fervor of any creationist and skewing his work. People are being terminated and losing grant money and being 'outed' and having their characters assassinated for simply looking at the data and deciding to not write off ID out of hand. a modern witch hunt that Darwin had to overcome. How ironic.

[GostHacked]

So, where does that leave the alien theory, known as directed panspermia? You are still going with the crackpot view? Well, you may not like it, but I don't think you speak for the scientific community, show me they think he's a crackpot or are you out of step with them?

You mean, Alien hypothesis. Because for it to become a scientific theory, testing needs to be done by several others before it is claimed as any kind of fact. You should watch those vids I linked. It will explain a lot.

And I freely admit I am not a scientist, which is pretty obvious, but molecules and amino acids and proteins growing by themselves is the point I was making, and its a pretty wild theory. The problem with scientists is the same with any other effort by man. He is capable of picking sides with the religious fervor of any creationist and skewing his work. People are being terminated and losing grant money and being 'outed' and having their characters assassinated for simply looking at the data and deciding to not write off ID out of hand. a modern witch hunt that Darwin had to overcome. How ironic.

I am glad you point out you are not a scientist.

Evolution does not deal with how life started. Evolution is how life changes in groups over periods of time. I don't get why this is being picked on as an issue with IDers. They cannot understand that evolution does not deal with how life started. That is a whole other ball game. Which is still being worked on. There are hypothesis, but nothing that has become a working scientific theory.

And if you have people like Kent Hovind (doing time for tax evasion) and Ray 'banana' Comfort (who claims that a banana was designed by God to fit perfectly in your hand, not even knowing that bananas in their current state have been domesticated by humans, that's right, the current form of the banana is all thanks to MAN, I wonder why a watermelon is never used in his analogy)

Of even Ken Ham who says you must look at everything through your biblical glasses. Which is nothing less than throwing bias out there before the question is even presented.

Not one of these dolts has presented any real evidence to support ID which is creationism with a new package which is religion, which is why it cannot be taught in a science class.

Ah, perhaps you haven't heard of Francis Crick. Won a Nobel Prize? Considered a genius? He supported the theory that aliens started life on earth. I don't believe he is either a 'crackpot' or a science fiction writer.

Well I personally kind of think that aliens had something to do with us. But that is an unprovable untestable hypothesis at this stage. The possibility is there and I won't deny that. But can I prove it? No, because I have no evidence to back up the claim. So I can't go shooting my mouth of saying that this is the truth.

[segnosaur]

So, where does that leave the alien theory, known as directed panspermia? You are still going with the crackpot view? Well, you may not like it, but I don't think you speak for the scientific community, show me they think he's a crackpot or are you out of step with them?

Well, how about the fact that the "alien theory" has never been published in any sort of proper peer-reviewed scientific journal is a pretty good indication that the scientific community does not accept the idea of aliens creating life on earth.

You simply do not have anything better than goddidit. Crystals and aliens and billions of years of evolution is no less outlandish than ID.

Yet we know the earth is billions of years old; we have radiometric dating as evidence for this.

And we know that crystals can and do provide regulated environments.

Compare that to the amount of evidence supporting ID, which is... absolutely nothing.

(Your 'alien' statement is nothing more than a Non sequitur, since none of the evolution supporters here believe in it.)

And I freely admit I am not a scientist, which is pretty obvious,...

Well duh....

The problem is not that you are not a scientist. (Heck, although I've studied biology, I haven't done any real 'science research' in years). The problem is that you are not a science, yet claim to pass judgement on work done by actual scientists, while at the same time producing statements with significant factual flaws.

If you want to be considered seriously, there's no need for you to actually become a scientist. What you DO need to do is actually learn some of the fundamentals, so that you can hopefully recognize when and how your own arguments are flawed (and if by some miracle you actually continue to believe bunk like ID, you at least will be able to do so without illustrating your ignornance with every post.)

but molecules and amino acids and proteins growing by themselves is the point I was making, and its a pretty wild theory.

Yet through the Miller-Urey experiment, we know that amino acids can form in conditions that would likely have existed on a young earth. So how is that "pretty wild"?

And we know that amino acids go together to make protiens. How is that "pretty wild"?

And we know that some protiens can self-replicate. So how is that "pretty wild"?

The problem with scientists is the same with any other effort by man. He is capable of picking sides with the religious fervor of any creationist and skewing his work. People are being terminated and losing grant money and being 'outed' and having their characters assassinated for simply looking at the data and deciding to not write off ID out of hand. a modern witch hunt that Darwin had to overcome. How ironic.

Ah yes, that old myth... that somehow there is some vast conspiricy that is silencing oppostion to evolution, without considering the fact that, given the fact that the majority of the civilian population (unfortunately) has doubts about evolution, such a 'conspiricy' would likely not last long.

[sharkman]

(Your 'alien' statement is nothing more than a Non sequitur, since none of the evolution supporters here believe in it.)

Yeah, maybe you should check the post above yours, and like, read it. Gosthacked supports it. So now you better assassinate his character too, he might not be a scientist.

[Oleg Bach]

Yeah, maybe you should check the post above yours, and like, read it. Gosthacked supports it. So now you better assassinate his character too, he might not be a scientist.

Not important - get on the GM thing and do some work.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, maybe you should check the post above yours, and like, read it. Gosthacked supports it. So now you better assassinate his character too, he might not be a scientist.

Correct, I am not a scientist. I am a systems administrator!!!. But even me supporting it, does not make it true.

[DogOnPorch]

But that doesn't quite explain the genesis of life. How did these acids spark life? They are all just theories without proof, same as ID.

Except ID suggests the use of supernatural magic where the various theories re: origins of life suggest no supernatural process was needed. Saying science can't discover the origins of life because it hasn't yet is akin to claiming man will never fly...or go to the Moon...or cure cancer.

Cancer...do you give to cancer research?

[sharkman]

How is believing that a supreme being started life any different than believing aliens started life? It's the same basic idea.

[DogOnPorch]

How is believing that a supreme being started life any different than believing aliens started life? It's the same basic idea.

I don't believe in either.

[ToadBrother]

Well, nothing like intellectual arrogance to aid your cause. Tell me Mr. toadbrother, how do evolutionists say the universe began, A big bang? And what caused that to happen? How did life begin on earth? The best they can come up with is that matter on CRYSTALS began the first cells as the crystals did some hocus pocus on them. I am not making this up.

First of all, cosmology is not a matter for evolution, any more than aerodynamics is an issue for geology. Do try to keep your fields of inquiry straight. As to abiogenesis, maybe you should actually read a book on the subject, so you don't sound like a half-wit. Trying to mock a scientific theory when all you've done is read some newspaper headlines is a special kind of arrogance all its own.

Or if the evolutionists really trust you, in a moment of weakness they will say it's possible that ALIENS SEEDED THE EARTH with life. Again, I am not making this up. They offer no word on who created the aliens, however.

Actually, the large majority of the biological community don't except panspermia at all. Ironically (and if you knew anything about this particular topic), it's the IDers like Behe who muse that maybe the Designer was an alien.

Another theory is that a bolt of lightning hitting mud started the process of life, but in the 50's some schmuck scientist proved to himself that he could not get any life to start when he experimented with lightning and mud over and over again repeatedly. Some say it started to smell good, which is where mud pies came from.

It's pretty evident that you have never read an actual book by a scientist. Are you proud to be so incredibly ignorant?

If that's the best the brightest minds in the world can come up with after hundreds of years and the power of computers, then perhaps those that oppose ID need to realize there is nothing better coming from their side.

Go to the library, read a book on biology. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[sharkman]

I don't believe in either.

But what does the scientific community believe? As mentioned earlier, Francis Crick, a nobel prize winner, thought it was reasonable. And I was thinking of Gosthacked, who likes this one as well.

[sharkman]

Did you read the thread comments after my post which you quoted? Because we are way past that now, most of what you've said has already been covered, albeit with a tad more respect, but thanks anyway.

[segnosaur]

(Your 'alien' statement is nothing more than a Non sequitur, since none of the evolution supporters here believe in it.)

Yeah, maybe you should check the post above yours, and like, read it. Gosthacked supports it. So now you better assassinate his character too, he might not be a scientist.

First of all, I had started to compose my message before Gosthack had posted his message, so I didn't notice it at the time.

However, if Ghosthack actually believes that Aliens 'seeded' the earth with life, then yes, he does believe in a 'crackpot' idea. However, in his defence:

- He recognizes that his data is unsupported by current evidence (unlike your average creationist/ID believer who tries to find 'proof' by using junk science)

- He is not currently 'pushing' his idea. He has his belief, but he's not trying to get others to accept it, nor is he claiming some vast conspiricy to squash the 'truth', or demanding his ideas get taught in school (unlike creationists/ID believers who have started multiple threads on the subject pushing their beliefs, or who have tried to take over various school boards in order to influence school cirriculum)

But what does the scientific community believe? As mentioned earlier, Francis Crick, a nobel prize winner, thought it was reasonable. And I was thinking of Gosthacked, who likes this one as well.

As I have stated before, there is not one article appearing in any respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal which pushes the 'aliens have visited earth' ideas. The fact that there are no such articles is pretty suggestive that the vast majority of the scientific community rejects the idea of alien visitation.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

But what does the scientific community believe? As mentioned earlier, Francis Crick, a nobel prize winner, thought it was reasonable. And I was thinking of Gosthacked, who likes this one as well.

You keep on bringing up this Crick fella, so I decided to see who he is and what he said. This is from wikipedia:

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[54] In a retrospective article,[55] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

So... this one guy makes a speculation (not a theory, not a hypothesis, but mere speculation) back in the early 70's, which he later retracted.

Do you have any better examples of these 'crackpot' scientists? This one was a bit weak.

[DogOnPorch]

But what does the scientific community believe? As mentioned earlier, Francis Crick, a nobel prize winner, thought it was reasonable. And I was thinking of Gosthacked, who likes this one as well.

The scientific community doesn't "believe" in anything in particular. It does trusts in the scientific method to sort out the various possibilties via experimentation.

Consider this as well. The scientist that discovers 'God' will get a few wings at various universities named after him/her as well as science classes, schools, holidays and what-have-you.

[GostHacked]

How is believing that a supreme being started life any different than believing aliens started life? It's the same basic idea.

They are not different. They are both untestable hypothesis.

[sharkman]

The scientific community doesn't "believe" in anything in particular. It does trusts in the scientific method to sort out the various possibilties via experimentation.

That sounds good until you consider it. The scientific community does believe that ID is quackery.

[daniel]

You can't (shouldn't) discuss science based on religion or discuss religion based on science. They are different.

It's like studying Beethoven's ninth to explain the economy.

[segnosaur]

The scientific community doesn't "believe" in anything in particular. It does trusts in the scientific method to sort out the various possibilties via experimentation.

That sounds good until you consider it. The scientific community does believe that ID is quackery.

Careful there... This is a question of semantics.

The word 'belief' implies acceptance of something without proof... christians believe in an invisible sky daddy not because of the evidence, but because of what they "feel". Creationists/ID believe that some unknown entity interfered with the process of evolution not because of the evidence, but because of their feelings toward g*d.

The sciencific community doesn't believe ID is quackery, they accept that it is quackery because that's where the evidence leads them. Similaryly, they accept that evolution is the correct explaination for all life on earth because that's where the evidence leads them. (Note that if you go back and look at my posts in particular, I'm very careful not to apply the term 'belief' with respect to evolution.)

I could also point out that the 'scientific community' is not some monolithic entity passing judgement on various hypothesis and theories. Its composed of thousands of scientists, many with opposing viewpoints, who can and do often have disagreements until some sort of final understanding is reached by the majority.

Edited June 2, 2009 by segnosaur

[sharkman]

No, they don't even consider evidence that might show ID in a new light. You are preaching the same old nonsense that comes out when ID opponents get that stressed out look in their eyes. Many scientists and professors have been black listed for not agreeing with the dogma of today, that ID is bunk. Look, believe that the sky is blue or green, whatever floats your boat, but don't present mere opinion like it's fact just because you have a preference for the word 'belief'.

I could offer you reams of evidence, but owing to the fact that evolutionists only consider evidence that supports their view point, I won't waste any more time.

[scorpio]

I could offer you reams of evidence, but owing to the fact that evolutionists only consider evidence that supports their view point, I won't waste any more time.

Opposed to creationists who accept all viewpoints.

[ToadBrother]

No, they don't even consider evidence that might show ID in a new light. You are preaching the same old nonsense that comes out when ID opponents get that stressed out look in their eyes. Many scientists and professors have been black listed for not agreeing with the dogma of today, that ID is bunk. Look, believe that the sky is blue or green, whatever floats your boat, but don't present mere opinion like it's fact just because you have a preference for the word 'belief'.

I could offer you reams of evidence, but owing to the fact that evolutionists only consider evidence that supports their view point, I won't waste any more time.

Are you going to offer reams of evidence, or just arguments from incredulity. Behe claimed to have reams of evidence, but his arguments amounted to "evolution can't explain this or that", which he keeps claiming even after it has. For instance, his claims about the vertebrate immune system and bacterial flagellum being impossible via natural selection fell flat, because there are ways for such systems to evolve.

Can you list here say, a dozen researchers whose fields of inquiry in some way broach evolution who believe in ID? I can think of maybe four or five off the top of my head (and no, mathematicians, engineers and philosophers are not scientists).

The fact is that the genetic makeup of populations changes over time (evolution). The fact is that speciation has been observed (macroevolution. The fact is that all extant life fits into a nested hierarchy pointing to a common ancestor, and that nested hierarchy agrees in large part with the faunal succession we observe in the fossil record. Heck, the evidence for evolution and common descent is so strong that one of ID's primary inventors, Michael Behe, doesn't even debate it, and it's other major inventor, William Dembski, simply waffles.

ID is a scam invented to sneak Creationism past the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It's history is well known (see the infamous Cdesign Proponentsists discoveries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and...oponentsists.22 ).

ID is dead. The Dover trial killed it. The Discovery Institute doesn't even flog it any more, preferring the Teach the Controversy line of attack. ID is not a theory, not in any scientific sense (Behe admitted that). Every example of Irreducible Complexity that has been put forward has been explained (in fact, IC as a concept was predicted decades ago and explained back then in terms of natural processes). Dembski's Information Filter is mathematical bafflegab of no utility whatsoever.

[segnosaur]

No, they don't even consider evidence that might show ID in a new light.

No, actually their 'evidence' has been examined and rejected as bunk.

The problem is, creationists and ID believers tend to come up with the same old cr*p over and over again, hoping that nobody notices that their argument #3234564 was exactly the same as argument #324563, which was exactly the same as #364562.... etc.

You are preaching the same old nonsense that comes out when ID opponents get that stressed out look in their eyes.

No stress, only frustration that our educational system has failed to properly educate people in logic and basic sciences.

Many scientists and professors have been black listed for not agreeing with the dogma of today, that ID is bunk.

As well they should... If a person holds to faulty beliefs such as ID in the face of, you know, actual evidence, then their abilities to think logically and scientifically should be legitimately questioned.

Put it this way, would you trust an auto-mechanic who doesn't know that cars need gasoline to run? Or trust a doctor who doesn't understand that the heart actually powers the circulation system?

Like I said, ID is typically based on junk science. If a professor accepts such junk science (despite the flaws being evident, often to people with even just a basic science education), then they DESERVE to be black listed.

Look, believe that the sky is blue or green, whatever floats your boat, but don't present mere opinion like it's fact just because you have a preference for the word 'belief'.

But I don't just 'believe' the sky is blue. Such things can be examined, the spectral characteristics of the sky can be tested, and theories can be developed about why its colour is blue. Similarly, I just don't "believe" that evolution occured... we can examine the fossil record, study the genetic characteristics, etc.

The fact that you don't recognize the significance of labelling something as a "belief" is another failure on your part.

I could offer you reams of evidence...

No, you couldn't. You could offer junk science, likely stuff that's been debunked multiple times in the past by people dealing with the same sort of "evidence".

Just out of curioisity, you claim that you are "not a scientist". Your posts also illustrate a startling lack of knowledge in science. So, just where exactly are you getting these "reams of evidence from"? If you're getting them from some pro-creationist/ID site, then how exactly can you tell its valid evidence without some sort of reasonable logical and scientific background? How do you know you're not just being fed a load of bunk? (At least I can point to multiple university-level courses, as well as substantial post-educational study as a basis for understanding what evidence is valid and what is not.)

[ToadBrother]

Like I said, ID is typically based on junk science. If a professor accepts such junk science (despite the flaws being evident, often to people with even just a basic science education), then they DESERVE to be black listed.

I wouldn't even say it was based on junk science. It's not based on any scientific principles at all, even faux ones. It is, at its core, essentially an argument from incredulity; as in "I can't believe that bacterial flagellum could have evolved without outside help." In fact, even junk science tries to come up with some sort of an explanation, even if it's "crystal power did it". Intelligent Design, because it was explicitly designed for the Big Tent strategy (to attract everything from Young Earth Creationists to Theistic Evolutionists) doesn't even attempt any sort of explanation. There's no suggestion as to the identity of the Designer(s) (can't do that, because then you'll lose on First Amendment grounds in court), no indication as to how anything was designed, the manufacturing processes involved, when it happened, and in fact, what precisely, beyond a few examples like the aforementioned flagellum, was designed. ID has no utility at all, because it makes no positive claims. In its simplest terms, it can be summed up thusly "Somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution".

The other problem is that, particular after the Dover trial became so disastrous (particularly Behe's humiliation), ID itself has been somewhat passed over by the Discovery Institute (it's important to mention here that other Creationists groups like AIG in fact reject ID because they view it as an attempt to hide God away). ID has ceased to be those sets of arguments put forward by Dembski and Behe, and has become a sort of nebulous theistic evolutionism. Most Creationists, when they bring up Intelligent Design, have little knowledge of what it was. They don't know anything about the infamous Information Filter or Irreducible Complexity. For them, it's simply a more "sciency" sounding way of saying Creationism.

[GostHacked]

No, they don't even consider evidence that might show ID in a new light. You are preaching the same old nonsense that comes out when ID opponents get that stressed out look in their eyes. Many scientists and professors have been black listed for not agreeing with the dogma of today, that ID is bunk. Look, believe that the sky is blue or green, whatever floats your boat, but don't present mere opinion like it's fact just because you have a preference for the word 'belief'.

I could offer you reams of evidence, but owing to the fact that evolutionists only consider evidence that supports their view point, I won't waste any more time.

Maybe you can do better than betsy has. We have not seen any proof in these threads to prove ID at all. All the evidence is showed is that there are holes in the evolution theory which makes the IDers conclude God did it. This is not science.