Abiogenesis: The First Frontier

Information Central ^ | 2/28/2001 | Steven Sawyer, Jon Sarfati

[Heartlander]

Evolution means the creator is nature.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

LETS SEE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS AND ON THE 7TH HE RESTED HMMMM YEP THAT BOUT SUMS IT UP THE REST IS HISTORY IN THE MAKING AND AN EXISTANCE WITHOUT A CREATOR !!!!

IS NOT AN OPTION

NUFF SAID

[Heartlander]

Surely you have read scripture from one of their prophets. Darwin maybe? If not, you can find their bible in many text books in our schools.

[Heartlander]

Cap lock problem?

[Sabertooth]

Science does should not take a stand one way or the other on a creator.

Can I get an "Amen" for scientific agnosticism?

[Sabertooth]

...the field of evolution and abiogenesis specificially excludes the possibility of a creator so the data is never revised in that direction regardless of the evidence.

Often, but always, and not necessarily.

[jwalsh07]

Well, either they changed the meaning of "organic" since I went to school or you are giving me the modern day definition of organic chemistry. Either way, if the writer meant carbon compounds, I suppose he should have said that.

[Heartlander]

Can I get an "Amen" for scientific agnosticism?

My point exactly…

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL! Agreed there too. I personally try to keep God out of my scientific research. I certainly do not invoke deities (except when I cut my self on a waveguide or something, and its not the best invocation :)) when I am installing a new LNA or evaluating stellar data.

[Sabertooth]

Often, but not always, and not necessarily.

Apologies for my incoherence.

[Raymond Hendrix]

The word "creator" does not appear anywhere in the theory of evolution or in any abiogenesis hypothesis.

That is exactly my point. The possibility is not even considered. If intelligent design stared them in the face they are not "allowed" to recognize the possibility. This may be scientific but it is hardly an objective treatment of the dispute.

[Pistias]

Science does not take a stand one way or the other on a creator. Science is creating the best model to fit the data discovered to date

Isn't that taking a stance on the possibility of miracles, at least? After all, fitting data to known physical laws assumes that the condition studied didn't just "happen"--i.e., a miracle or Creation by super-reasonable forces.

[Dimensio]

Evolution means the creator is nature.

No, evolution means that alelle frequencies change over time. Natural Selection means that in populations the organisms with the best genetic chance for survival will be the ones to reproduce and pass on their genetic information. Common descent means that current life forms are the result of years of evolution and natural selection from older life forms. None of that says anything about the possibility of a creator.

[Dimensio]

Surely you have read scripture from one of their prophets. Darwin maybe? If not, you can find their bible in many text books in our schools.

Darwin was not a prophet, nor were his words "scripture". If you can point out where in the theory of evolution it is posited that no "Creator" exists, please do so.

[Heartlander]

Sir, no matter how you might chose to word it – evolution means nature is the creator.

[Dimensio]

That is exactly my point. The possibility is not even considered. If intelligent design stared them in the face they are not "allowed" to recognize the possibility. This may be scientific but it is hardly an objective treatment of the dispute.

The word "creator" doesn't exist anywhere in gravitational theory or electrical theory either. It doesn't mean that those theories are discounting the possibility of a creator, it simply means that the existence of a creator isn't relevant to the theory. If you have an objective, testable and falsifiable theory involving a "creator", please present it.

[Dimensio]

Sir, no matter how you might chose to word it – evolution means nature is the creator.

Then explain exactly how it means that, unless you're using very narrow definitions of the words "nature" and "creator" -- in which case your definition is meaningless.

[Heartlander]

You tell me...

[Raymond Hendrix]

Read my book.

[Dimensio]

I do know what I typed. I don't see how what I stated is the same as saying that evolution calls nature the "creator". Do note that the formation of the cosmos is not at all a part of evoluiton -- neither is the origin of life itself.