Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin's warm pond theory tested
BBC News ^ | 13February2006 | Rebecca Morelle

Posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:37 PM PST by jwalsh07

Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher.

Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life.

The findings are being discussed at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth.

It is taking place at the Royal Society in London.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: evocrevo; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Darwins Warm Pond Theory Tested
1 posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:38 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: connectthedots; AndrewC; xzins; Senator Bedfellow; RussP


2 posted on 02/16/2006 6:03:48 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Do ya think?


3 posted on 02/16/2006 6:06:29 PM PST by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Darwin's Warm Pond Theory Tested

Search is your friend.

4 posted on 02/16/2006 6:06:42 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Alas, not all warm little ponds are volcanic vents.


5 posted on 02/16/2006 6:07:11 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Brush

Sometimes, sometimes not.


6 posted on 02/16/2006 6:07:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Not my friend obviously. But thanks for the notice.


7 posted on 02/16/2006 6:08:05 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added."
______________________________________

Maybe it formed in a cold pond. Maybe it formed on dry land. Maybe martians put it there. Maybe the first organism just spontaneously formed out of thin air. Maybe Maybe Maybe....

Maybe there are some things that just cannot be proved through science.....


8 posted on 02/16/2006 6:10:58 PM PST by fizziwig (Democrats: so far off the path, so incredibly vicious, so sadly pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Maybe there are some things that just cannot be proved through science.....

Undoubtedly.

9 posted on 02/16/2006 6:15:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Warm little ponds have their own problems which is why OOL researchers went to the vents and clay.


10 posted on 02/16/2006 6:18:11 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Maybe Maybe Maybe....

Hey, its great work if you can get it. And the great part is that noone except another pinhead can ever prove you wrong. I'll bet they will have a grand old time in London at our expense.
11 posted on 02/16/2006 6:23:06 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Sounds to me like the scientists are lost in their theories and don't know what new theory to turn to next.

Wonder what other parts of Darwin's theory will remain unprovable.


12 posted on 02/16/2006 6:28:30 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Well, they were certainly hopeful that vents and clay would be the holy grail of OOL studies. Back to the drawing board.


13 posted on 02/16/2006 6:34:18 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Darwin's warm pond theory tested"

Evolution is a theory, Darwin's comment about a warm pond was merely a hypothesis. The difference between the two terms must be understood.

14 posted on 02/16/2006 6:36:38 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I liked this article. It reflects my thinking. It was the closest to the truth of many origins articles I've read on FR. There are simply too many unanswered questions for either evolution OR ID to claim victory or scientific "proof".


15 posted on 02/16/2006 6:42:40 PM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Darwin's comment about a warm pond was merely a hypothesis

We all know we were dropped here from a mother ship.

16 posted on 02/16/2006 6:43:21 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I understand the terms. I also understand the title and the body thereof. Do you think it a bit presumptuous to go through life thinking that only you are capable of reading and understanding basic English?
17 posted on 02/16/2006 6:47:50 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Glad you liked it.


18 posted on 02/16/2006 6:48:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
scientific "proof".

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

19 posted on 02/16/2006 7:04:53 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jec41
"There is no such thing as scientific proof."

1+1=2

Scientific proof.

(scoff)

20 posted on 02/16/2006 7:07:26 PM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Maybe there are some things that just cannot be proved through science

Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof.

21 posted on 02/16/2006 7:09:42 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Do you think it a bit presumptuous to go through life thinking that only you are capable of reading and understanding basic English?"

Gosh, how did you get to be spring-loaded to the pissed-off position? The point I was making is precisely the point most creationists and ID-iots seem to miss.

Nice talking to you.

22 posted on 02/16/2006 7:14:32 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jec41

"Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof."
___________________________________

Hmmm. well science has proved the earth is round, that the planets rotate around the sun, that dinosaurs existed...etc etc

How about this..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."


23 posted on 02/16/2006 7:38:55 PM PST by fizziwig (Democrats: so far off the path, so incredibly vicious, so sadly pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
There are simply too many unanswered questions for either evolution OR ID to claim victory or scientific "proof".

What does this article have to do with evolution? It offered no information for or against ID either. What are you talking about.

24 posted on 02/16/2006 7:41:03 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
1+1=2 Scientific proof.

That's mathematics, not "science". But of course you knew that.

Semantically, there is no "proof" in science.

25 posted on 02/16/2006 7:43:07 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
"There is no such thing as scientific proof."
1+1=2

Scientific proof.

(scoff)

You might want look up the definition of mathemathics and science. They are different fields of study and method. However since you would try to frunish proof through mathemathics here are some proprositions.
1+1=2
.99+.99=2
.98+.98=2
.97+.97=2
.96+.96=2
.95+.95=2
.95+1.04=2
1.0000000000000000001+1.00999999999999=2
.99=1
.98=1
.97=1
.96=1
.95=1
1.0000000000000000001=1
1.0099999999999999999=1
and the numerbers and symbols are infinate. Where is your simple proof that 1+1=2 or the only varations of 1 that produces 2. You cannot even prove that .999999999999999999 is or is not 1. Its by limits not proof.
26 posted on 02/16/2006 7:44:40 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
science has proved the earth is round, that the planets rotate around the sun

Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?

27 posted on 02/16/2006 7:45:59 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narby

Maybe.


28 posted on 02/16/2006 7:48:02 PM PST by fizziwig (Democrats: so far off the path, so incredibly vicious, so sadly pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

The "theory" of how the first living cell came to be has always intrigued me. No matter what anyone calculates as the odds against it, naturalists will always reply that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."

So how could this "theory" possibly be disproven? It can't be disproven. But, as evolutionists constantly claim, that means it is unscientific! Remember, a theory must be "falsifiable" to be scientific.

The idea that science will someday be able to explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic means (with no intelligent design) is really just a hope and a dream (or an assumption) of evolutionists. The problem is that they have a very bad habit of confusing those hopes and dreams (and assumptions) with science.


29 posted on 02/16/2006 7:49:27 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narby

Good point. Since the announcement that two more dimensions of "time" may have been found, space could well be wrapped around the ever present existential "I", and everything else could be little more than a projection of some sort.


30 posted on 02/16/2006 7:51:09 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Warm pond? I thought this thread was going to be about peeing in the pool.


31 posted on 02/16/2006 7:52:28 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno
"Wonder what other parts of Darwin's theory will remain unprovable."

Co-inkydinkily, I just read this yesterday:

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm/

32 posted on 02/16/2006 7:54:38 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: narby
science has proved the earth is round, that the planets rotate around the sun

Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?

Maybe arguing logic with liberals and evolutionists is equally pointless.

33 posted on 02/16/2006 7:55:48 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: groanup
My thoughts exactly. I immediately thought of:

Ruprecht: "May I go the bathroom?"

M. Cain : "Why certainly,...."

Ruprecht: [slumps in chair relieving himself]

.,..Classic.

34 posted on 02/16/2006 7:58:20 PM PST by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Good point. Since the announcement that two more dimensions of "time" may have been found, space could well be wrapped around the ever present existential "I", and everything else could be little more than a projection of some sort.

The very same hypothesis I always seemed to end up pondering whenever I was stoned in the 70's.

Coincidence?

35 posted on 02/16/2006 8:01:06 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: adorno; jwalsh07; Eastbound; PatrickHenry
Wonder what other parts of Darwin's theory will remain unprovable.

Wonder when people will ever bother to learn enough about biology and/or Darwin to snap to the fact that the origin of life is in no way any part of "Darwin's theory".

Evolutionary biology, and Darwin's writings about it, deal entirely with how life changes once it's here, not how it started or where it came from.

While it's true that biologists investigate *both* fields of study (as well as many others), they are *different* fields of biology. Origin of life questions are no part of "Darwin's theory" or evolutionary biology, just as where the atmosphere may have come from originally is no part of (and irrelevant to) meteorology, which is the study of how the atmosphere behaves and changes now that it's here.

36 posted on 02/16/2006 8:02:38 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Maybe arguing logic with liberals and evolutionists is equally pointless.

Maybe if someone would ever start arguing with "evolutionists" based on logic, we'd actually be able to test that hypothesis. Almost without exception, though, people end up trying to argue against evolutionary biology via misrepresentations, misunderstandings, fallacies, and lies (2). Hearing anti-evolutionists try to "refute" biology (and physics, and geology, and...) is like listening to a Michael Moore fan try to dispute conservatism, and for exactly the same reasons.

37 posted on 02/16/2006 8:08:42 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
science has proved the earth is round

When and where?

..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."

How about this, we start with the definition of science and its method. Science is the observation of a material thing that exists in nature (fact) and there is evidence and empirical evidence for the fact and would provide a logical explanation (theory) for the observance of the fact. You are correct, science cannot explain everything. By definition it cannot explain the unknown or something that occurs that is not of a material existence. It cannot explain any faith or belief of the unknown or gravity. Faith and belief are observed by philosophy, gravity is observed by mathematics.

38 posted on 02/16/2006 8:09:53 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Evolutionary biology, and Darwin's writings about it, deal entirely with how life changes once it's here, not how it started or where it came from.

That simply doesn't matter. They both attempt to explain the complexity of life, either it's origins, or its variations, with a mechanism that has no possibility of producing those results.

And that mechanism is the same. Chance events, and long periods of time, combine (with the help of another inadequate factor in the case of evolution...selection) to produce the most complex, intricate, and purposeful structures known.

39 posted on 02/16/2006 8:15:18 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Maybe if someone would ever start arguing with "evolutionists" based on logic, we'd actually be able to test that hypothesis.

So then, the Earth isn't round, and planets don't go around the Sun, and science never proved it, and is not capable of proving it because science can't prove anything. Is that your position?

40 posted on 02/16/2006 8:18:57 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RussP
The "theory" of how the first living cell came to be has always intrigued me.

Would you state the theory or paste a copy or furnish a link where this theory is stated and exists? Not research, the theory itself.

41 posted on 02/16/2006 8:19:20 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
"Wonder what other parts of Darwin's theory will remain unprovable."

The method of science does not prove or disprove anything. Any variation of the term proof is not used in science. The method of science is to explain a material fact.

42 posted on 02/16/2006 8:29:10 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Maybe arguing logic with liberals and evolutionists is equally pointless.

Maybe making points to creationists about the scientific meaning of the word "proof" is pointless.

Like a joke, I hate to explain it, but science doesn't recognize the word "proof". However unlikely, highly unlikely, it may be, it is always possible that we might find another explanation for what appears to be a "round" earth.

43 posted on 02/16/2006 8:33:27 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
[Evolutionary biology, and Darwin's writings about it, deal entirely with how life changes once it's here, not how it started or where it came from.]

That simply doesn't matter.

It does when people mistakenly try to imply, or often outright claim, that evolutionary biology is somehow dependent upon, or inextricably linked to, the validity of various origin-of-life hypotheses.

They both attempt to explain the complexity of life,

No, they most certainly do not. Biogenesis does not attempt to explain the complexity of life. It attempts to explain the origin of replication, period, no matter how simple. Please try to learn something about a topic before you attempt to expound upon it.

either it's origins, or its variations, with a mechanism that has no possibility of producing those results.

Why, because you say so? Because you're unfamiliar with how evolutionary processes produce complexity and functionality?

And that mechanism is the same.

Wrong again. Evolutionary biology deals with evolutionary processes, which involve replication as a necessary ingredient. Biogenesis is pre-replication, and must obviously occur by different mechanisms. Again, please try to learn a subject before you start trying to "lecture" on it.

Chance events, and long periods of time, combine (with the help of another inadequate factor in the case of evolution...selection) to produce the most complex, intricate, and purposeful structures known.

Congratulations, you've left out some of the other necessary conditions for evolutionary processes to occur -- your description is a fallacious analogy, and utterly fails to examine, critique, analyze, or refute the actual properties of those processes. Your post is just a classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy -- these fallacies have the general form, "because *I* can't conceive how X could take place, then it can't happen!"

Here, start your neglected education then get back to us:


29 Evidences for Macroevolution PDF image
This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, or cannot be falsified.

Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction
Critics of evolutionary theory very often misunderstand the philosophical issues of the speciality known as the philosophy of science. This essay seeks to summarise some of the more important recent developments, provide a reading list, and to show that evolution is no worse off philosophically than any other science would be, and that the usual arguments against evolution from a philosophical approach fail.


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
It is impossible to to debate creationists without hearing them claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This essay puts the lie to that claim by listing and briefly describing a large number of transitional fossils among the vertebrates.


Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation
Creationists often argue that evolutionary processes cannot create new information, or that evolution has no practical benefits. This article disproves those claims by describing the explosive growth and widespread applications of genetic algorithms, a computing technique based on principles of biological evolution.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
This essay is a must-read for anyone who wants to participate in talk.origins. It lays out the land for evolutionists and creationists alike, presenting the ideas behind and the evidence for biological evolution.

What is Evolution?
All too often creationists spend their time arguing with a straw-man caricature of evolution. This brief essay presents a definition of evolution that is acceptable to evolutionists.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.

Genetic Algorithms

The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. By Stuart Kauffman, S. A. (1993) Oxford University Press, NY, ISBN: 0195079515.

Compositional genomes: Prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies

Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

The origin of genetic information: viruses as models

Compositional genomes: prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies

Stadler PF, Dynamics of autocatalytic reaction networks. IV: Inhomogeneous replicator networks. Biosystems, 26: 1-19, 1991

Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997

Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR, Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4, 1997

Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information

Creationist Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

Evolution of biological information

Evolution of biological complexity

Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates

Gene duplications in evolution of archaeal family B DNA polymerases

Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.

Selection in the evolution of gene duplications

Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.

Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.

Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.

Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.

Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.

Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.

Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.

Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.

Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.

Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.

Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.

Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.

Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.

Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.

Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.

Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.

Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.

To cover other anti-evolution talking points you think you might have, check out this list of common creationist claims -- each item is linked to a discussion of the weaknesses of that talking point.

If you still have any unresolved questions or require further explanation of why you're talking nonsense, ask me and I'll cover it in more detail.

44 posted on 02/16/2006 8:38:11 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
And that mechanism is the same. Chance events, and long periods of time

You have zero comprehension of what evolution is. Abiogenesis, by definition, cannot evolve because it cannot reproduce. While evolution totally depends on reproduction and genetic changes. These two things are in no way "the same".

45 posted on 02/16/2006 8:39:52 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jec41

"Would you state the theory or paste a copy or furnish a link where this theory is stated and exists? Not research, the theory itself."

Actually, it's a hypothesis rather than a "theory." You got me on that one. But that's semantic quibbling and is beside the main point.

Evolutionists routinely claim that the theory of evolution is separate from the origin of life. That's technically true, but if the origin of life cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means, that more or less blows away the notion that science must be premised on pure naturalism, eh?


46 posted on 02/16/2006 8:47:54 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
So then, the Earth isn't round, and planets don't go around the Sun, and science never proved it, and is not capable of proving it because science can't prove anything. Is that your position?

No, science never proved the earth round or that the planets go around the sun. Science can never prove anything, the only method of science is to explain a material fact. That does not mean the earth is not round or that it does not revolve around the sun. That is observed by mathematics for things that occur as time, distance, velocity etc. Mathematics and science are two different methods for different observations.

47 posted on 02/16/2006 8:48:55 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RussP
if the origin of life cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means, that more or less blows away the notion that science must be premised on pure naturalism, eh?

No. All that means is we can't tell you today exactly how life began via naturalistic means. Like we couldn't tell you 100 years ago that the mechanism of inheritance was DNA.

What supernaturalists can't explain is why they believe that any supernatural thing exists at all. Besides the fact that they believe it is so.

48 posted on 02/16/2006 8:59:59 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RussP
[What supernaturalists can't explain is why they believe that any supernatural thing exists at all.]

Let me expand on that.

Natural explanations exist. Water evaporates and then condenses to form rain. Thousands of other natural processes are understood.

By contrast *no* supernatural phenomenon can be documented. None. Not fortune telling. Not ghosts. No Goddess Pele has been measured. Zeus can't bee found. Nothing, nada, zip.

So what makes you believe that any supernatural entity exists at all?

And creationists compare scientists to liberals who believe things for no reason at all ....

49 posted on 02/16/2006 9:07:33 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: adorno
It seems prudent to remain calm when examining ideas, especially when dealing with evolution, but a lot of what Darwin said about adaptation, natural selection, and evolution has been proven scientifically...but there are still hollow spots in the theory, which seems fitting, considering that to comprehend all his ideas in totality, if you're not a sci-genius, is overwhelming and most likely impossible.

As far as "Unprovable" goes, the Bible's creation story cannot be proven...albeit, it is an account outside the scientific realm; but just because Darwin's theories haven't been unanimously proven, doesn't rubber stamp the Genesis creation story as the "correct" version of where we came from.
50 posted on 02/16/2006 9:10:21 PM PST by Lochlainnach (If there was no death penalty, I'm pretty sure Jesus would still be alive today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson