"The whole theory of evouution implies that all life on earth descended from a single common ancestor. Way back in time there was a simple, self reproducing protien. That was the first organism." ------------------- .........and that is why the 'theory' of evolution will always be a 'theory'. It is based on a false premise and circular reasoning. Scientists may be able to 'create' life, but only by initiating the experiment with life itself.
a. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with creating life. b. Scientists do not have billions of years to work with.
"a. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with creating life." -------------------- I agree that micro-evolution, or changes in allele frequency within a species, has nothing to do with creating life. However, the fallacy of macro-evolution (one species to another) is based on the premise of life's origin. 'Origin of Species', remember? "b. Scientists do not have billions of years to work with." ---------------------- Exactly. Nor does the scientific method account for all available evidence in this world. It is limited. If we do not include non-empirical objects and processes in our studies, then our interpretations will be epistemologically limited in scope.
Origin of species is not the same thing as origin of life. You have a gross mis-understanding of the theory of evolution. Please read some books, then debate. I'll say again: The premise of life's origin has nothing to do with macro-evolution. Do you mean indirect evidence? The scientific method does indeed account for such. Or do mean undetectable evidence? In which case, sorry but that isn't evidence...
In which case, sorry but that isn't evidence... ---------------------- Says who? You? Simply because an object or process does not meet your criteria as evidence does not invalidate that object or process as evidence. Do you posit that the scientific method can account for all things in existence?
Yes, I am just giving my opinion like everyone else on this board. It does to me! Please give me an example of 'evidence' that is not detectable. No, but it can account for all the things we experience. I suppose you concede your origins of life point by your silence?
"Origin of species is not the same thing as origin of life." ---------------------- Yes, I understand what you are saying here. My point is simply that macro-evolution has to begin at some point, and that point is it's origin. I agree with your above statement. "Please give me an example of 'evidence' that is not detectable." ------------------------ For starters? Valid evidence supporting the big bang. Valid evidence supporting macro-evolution (one species to another). These evidences would necessitate a scope which the scientific method is incapable of verifying. Science can only draw conclusions on what it finds, not on what it can't find.
inspector For starters? Valid evidence supporting the big bang. 1. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) 2. The expansion of the universe in all directions implies that everything in the universe must have been very close together at one time. 3. Additionally, you could invoke General Relativity to describe the universe in every possible way that we know. For example, there must have been a singularity at the instant the universe came into existence.
Thank you for the information. Of course, I could equally offer the fact that the Universe is static, rather than expanding, and is supported by the following studies and reference material among others. With equally valid alternative theories, how do you know that the universe is expanding? Cooperstock F.I., Faraoni V., Vollick D.N., 1998, Astrophys. J. 503:61 My point is that the scientific method is epistemologically limited to empirical evidence and subsequent interpretation, which unfortunately, excludes a whole realm of indirect evidence that lay beyond the scope of the method itself. However, this evidence cannot be disqualified in our search for truth and knowledge.
Science has never said it had all the answers. No one was able to build an airplane in the 17th century, something very common today. It is because of science that we are able to do so. The understanding of the principals involved is key to doing so. Just because today we can not explain something does not mean that we will never be able to do so. After all it was not that long ago that men thought a giant turtle was responcible to seeing the world move through the heavens.
inspector I could equally offer the fact that the Universe is static, rather than expanding, and is supported by the following studies and reference material among others. With equally valid alternative theories Cooperstock F.I., Faraoni V., Vollick D.N., 1998, Astrophys. J. 503:61 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9803/9803097.pdf Unfortunately, the theory was submitted for peer review and was rejected. It was in part contradictory to General Relativity. how do you know that the universe is expanding? The cosmological principle states that when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, there are no preferred directions or preferred places in the Universe. Stated simply, this principle means that averaged over large enough distances, one part of the Universe looks approximately like any other part and requires that the Universe be expanding or contracting, therefore it is totally inconsistent with a static Universe. My point is that the scientific method is epistemologically limited to empirical evidence and subsequent interpretation, which unfortunately, excludes a whole realm of indirect evidence that lay beyond the scope of the method itself. However, this evidence cannot be disqualified in our search for truth and knowledge. Circular reasoning. I thought we addressed this issue in another thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory. No matter what the details are, things still fall down.
and if those calculations about background radiation were wrong q the scientists would go 'back to the drawing board' and find out whee they went wrong. And guess what, they would find out what they did wrong and change their maths until it fitted. They would keep changing it until they came up with the correct answer and then they would explain what they were doing wrong i.e. they would say something like "we werent taking into account the radiation from mars which appears twice as strong to us because it is closer..." etc. They would keep changing it until it fitted!
