Should science be secular?

[larkin31]

larkin

abiogenesis is a very young and speculative science, for obvious reasons

But what cannot be said about it is that it fits into the theory of evolution, not by a long shot.

Correct. Abiogenesis is not strictly a part of evolutionary theory. I consider this common knowledge.

Atheistic scientists will be looking with all their might for an explanation that avoids design, just as Einstein looked with all his might for a way to avoid any semblance of a created universe.

These are both false statements.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin
*
Did you read any of the page I linked? *

Did you answer the question I asked?

We could throw sources at each other all day long. What would that prove except that we can keep each other away from a personal accounting for our convictions?

I’ll ask you the same question I asked wanstronian:

*How did the first living cell come to be … when there was nothing for it to evolve from?

Did it come about by chance, or by design, or by some other method? *

Pick one.

 

[larkin31]

larkin
*
Did you read any of the page I linked? *

Did you answer the question I asked?

We could throw sources at each other all day long. What would that prove except that we can keep each other away from a personal accounting for our convictions?

I’ll ask you the same question I asked wanstronian:

*How did the first living cell come to be … when there was nothing for it to evolve from?

Did it come about by chance, or by design, or by some other method? *

Pick one.

I directly answered this question: we don’t know. And to help you see how much is known (not much) I posted a link for your edification. How is this “not answering” your question?

Did you not read that post?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You could have easily picked any one or two of the three. However, since you say we don’t know, is it then possible that the first living cell was intelligently designed?

 

[larkin31]

You could have easily picked any one or two of the three. However, since you say we don’t know, is it then possible that the first living cell was intelligently designed?

of course!

it is also possible that Salo (robot from Tralfamadore) put the first cell on this planet (see Kurt Vonnegut for that reference)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*it is also possible that Salo (robot from Tralfamadore) put the first cell on this planet (see Kurt Vonnegut for that reference) *

Yes, Vonnegut was another atheist.

What I hear you implying is that it is highly unlikely that the first cell was designed. Tell me, then, how much more likely it was that it came into existence by chance? About as likely as a robot from Tralfamadore putting the first cell on this planet?

 

[larkin31]

larkin

*it is also possible that Salo (robot from Tralfamadore) put the first cell on this planet (see Kurt Vonnegut for that reference) *

Yes, Vonnegut was another atheist.

What I hear you implying is that it is highly unlikely that the first cell was designed. Tell me, then, how much more likely it was that it came into existence by chance? About as likely as a robot from Tralfamadore putting the first cell on this planet?

life was unlikely indeed

it took a billion years or more for it to develop

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*it took a billion years or more for it to develop *

Interesting that you use the word “develop” rather than “evolve.” What is the difference in your mind?

Since there is no way to observe how life “developed,” and since you think it was unlikely to develop either by design or by chance, why object to design any more than you would object to chance?

 

[Moonstruck888]

larkin

abiogenesis is a very young and speculative science, for obvious reasons

But what cannot be said about it is that it fits into the theory of evolution, not by a long shot.

Atheistic scientists will be looking with all their might for an explanation that avoids design, just as Einstein looked with all his might for a way to avoid any semblance of a created universe.

Nobody has ever claimed that abiogenesis is part of the theory that dare not speak it’s name apart from people with no understanding of unsaid theory.

 

[Moonstruck888]

larkin

*it took a billion years or more for it to develop *

Interesting that you use the word “develop” rather than “evolve.” What is the difference in your mind?

Since there is no way to observe how life “developed,” and since you think it was unlikely to develop either by design or by chance, why object to design any more than you would object to chance?

Why are you still trying to maintain the vacuous pretence that any scientist has ever posited chance as an explanation for DNA based life?

You and I can discuss the theory that dare not speak it’s name on the back fence forum. Would you care to step outside sir?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Can you say that in English?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don’t do English! How about Scots Gaelic? It’s fairly close to my Irish
and I would do my darnedest to accommodate the snakebends of your logic.

Let’s see how you enjoy a couple of little racist jokes…

You’re certainly stupid enough to be Irish.

Why don’t stick to what you’re good at, bombing public bars full of innocent people?

Of course, with me being British I’ll be a legitimate target, eh?

 

[colmcille1]

let’s see how you enjoy a couple of little racist jokes…

You’re certainly stupid enough to be irish.

Why don’t stick to what you’re good at, bombing public bars full of innocent people?

Note this, everyone!
This is the level of human we have in our midst.
Note this person’s name and remember this comment.
This, i repeat, is the level of human we have in our midst.

 

[Moonstruck888]

]Note this, everyone!
This is the level of human we have in our midst.

You thought it was funny when it was anti Scottish racism.

Now come on, what happened to your sense of humour? I thought you enjoyed a good joke, or is it only when you’re dishing it out?

Note this person’s name and remember this comment.
This, i repeat, is the level of human we have in our midst.

Oh yes indeed. I know I’m not a nice guy. Neither are you. I don’t think you have much business giving anyone a lecture on ethics.

 

[larkin31]

Note this, everyone!
This is the level of human we have in our midst.
Note this person’s name and remember this comment.
This, i repeat, is the level of human we have in our midst.

You missed the point.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

*it took a billion years or more for it to develop *

Interesting that you use the word “develop” rather than “evolve.” What is the difference in your mind?

Since there is no way to observe how life “developed,” and since you think it was unlikely to develop either by design or by chance, why object to design any more than you would object to chance?

I don’t object to the “possibility”. I fully admit the “possibility.”

But, as ID proponents admit, they actually have no scientific theory at all, and do no actual research themselves. Abiogenesis research fully describes itself and admits the limits of its findings.

ID research does not exist, and there is no scientific theory of ID origins. Not even a tentative one. All there is, is religious faith.

All I object to is lousy thinking. I have no objection to statements of faith as long as they are stated as such.

 

[tonyrey]

larkin

*it took a billion years or more for it to develop *

Interesting that you use the word “develop” rather than “evolve.” What is the difference in your mind?

Since there is no way to observe how life “developed,” and since you think it was unlikely to develop either by design or by chance, why object to design any more than you would object to chance?

An irrefutable argument! The very fact that life is so unlikely and has not only appeared but also survived for billions of years on a hazardous planet is potent evidence that it is not adequately explained as the result of blind physical necessity - which is a view that requires blind faith!

 

[larkin31]

An irrefutable argument! The very fact that life is so unlikely and has not only appeared but also survived for billions of years on a hazardous planet is potent evidence that it is not adequately explained as the result of blind physical necessity - which is a view that requires blind faith!

Most life does not survive

something like 98% of the species that have ever lived are no longer on this planet

death and extinction are the rule

if it is design, it is a lousy, ineffective, and brutally wasteful one

The only thing that keeps life going is adaptive change and speciation, because the “design” is otherwise is doomed to failure

and that, my friends, is EVOLUTION, by definition

 

[Moonstruck888]

Most life does not survive

something like 98% of the species that have ever lived are no longer on this planet

death and extinction are the rule

if it is design, it is a lousy, ineffective, and brutally wasteful one

The only thing that keeps life going is adaptive change and speciation, because the “design” is otherwise is doomed to failure

and that, my friends, is EVOLUTION, by definition

Beautifully illustrated… Not random chance. Not design.

Adaptation by selection of unique character combinations that confer a survival advantage.

 

[colmcille1]

An irrefutable argument! The very fact that life is so unlikely and has not only appeared but also survived for billions of years on a hazardous planet is potent evidence that it is not adequately explained as the result of blind physical necessity - which is a view that requires blind faith!

Faith will always triumph. While Faith leads us onward and upward into the Divine Light, deep down in the muck and mire Satan holds hands with the purveyors of humourless hateful atheism.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[larkin31]

Faith will always triumph. While Faith leads us onward and upward into the Divine Light, deep down in the muck and mire Satan holds hands with the purveyors of humourless hateful atheism.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

Love you too.