E
Edgar
Guest
Thank you. Is it correct to say no one can prove that all life on earth evolved from a microbe?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
Translation: I won’t answer Edgar’s question because it is correct to say “No one can prove that the common ancestor of all life on earth is a microbe.” Instead, I will provide an innane, evasive comment that contributes nothing to the discussion.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes. In general, science never proves anything. In particular, the above claim presupposes knowledge of all life on earth. We are not even close yet.
In a rare yet truthful post, our intrepid interlocutor confirms his own particular ignorance on the matter.
O
o_mlly
Guest
You are welcome. We try to help you kids out when we can. There’s still hope.
E
Edgar
Guest
How can you “understand” how a process works if all you have is a theory for how that process works? I think you are conflating understanding a theory and knowing a fact.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Remember, even though life looks designed, it cannot be. 
for we cannot “let the Divine foot in the door” …ever…
for we cannot “let the Divine foot in the door” …ever…
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Not when doing science, no. The Principle underlying the scientific method is called methodological naturalism for a reason.
Why don’t you just admit that you are against methodological naturalism in principle.
Otherwise, Intelligent design is a concept that only philosophers can consider. Such questions belong in philosophy, not science.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Of course. It has happened many times in the history of science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Evo does not qualify as empirical science. SInce it is not, it is philosophy.
E
edwest
Guest
Excellent. Thank you.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Even if i were to question the evidence for evolution, in principle the idea of evolution qualifies as an hypothesis in the scientific sense of the word insofar as it is in principle discoverable by and consistent with the scientific method.
Intelligent design is not.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
R
Richca
Guest
From your opening post, it doesn’t follow from any point of view that God had to create all the kinds or species of plants and animals at once or simultaneously which is your assumption. In fact, the evidence you speak of in your OP is consistent with the Genesis 7 day creation narrative. Neither do the days need be understood solely as 24 hour days except according to a human reckoning of time of a seven day work week. Nor is it necessary to interpret the works of God in the 7 days creation account as if it is a strict historical or chronological sequence in all aspects. The bottom line is that neither your opening post nor any subsequent post on this thread nor any science can reasonably claim to put to rest from any point of view your assertion.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
They can’t even show a creature or a plant that’s morphing into something new right now in this day and age.o_mlly:
Thank you. Is it correct to say no one can prove that all life on earth evolved from a microbe?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
The idea of irreducible complexity is not reliable from a scientific standpoint. Because again and again scientists have discovered things that have been thought to be irreducibly complex and yet they have been found to be the result of a chemical process and not an intelligent-builder. Even if a scientist found a complex mechanism within a system that couldn’t be reduced to something that is relatively less complex without breaking the system, all that the scientist could say about the matter is that they don’t know, because in that case they have reached the limits of the scientific method.
The idea that the system is intelligently designed is a philosophical point of view that may or may not be correct. But certainly has nothing to do with science.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure it does. Biomimicry studies the design found in nature and copies it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Show me the top five examples.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I
IWantGod
Guest
That is not the study of intelligent design. This is were somebody looks to nature and tries to create an artificial copy. An applied science at best, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
biomimicry
/bʌɪəʊˈmɪmɪkri/
noun
noun: biomimicry ; noun: bio-mimicry
- the design and production of materials, structures, and systems that are modelled on biological entities and processes.
- Status