All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[nostatic]

Xenu ROCKS!

All hail!

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by ZOANAS

Then you agree, finding life anywhere else would be a serious blow to the idea of Creation? Evolution, if it is the explanation of life, should exist elsewhere, while Creation is an Earthly concept.

That is the conundrum I see. Until life is found elsewhere in the universe, Creation will remain on an equal footing with Evolution as a theory.

Not hardly. Creation has absolutely no supporting evidence and cannot be considered of equal probability to evolution which has an enormous body of evidence.
Let's say we find fossil evidence of past microbial life on Mars. The creationists will simply claim that god did it along with all other life in the universe. Mormons already believe that there is an infinite number of planets in the universe inhabited by humans.

[stuartj]

What century are we in, again?

[SlowToady]

As a semantic aside, if the universe is infinite, no matter how much of it you explore, you will statistically have explored...none of it.

Originally Posted by IROC

Hardly compelling at all. How much of the universe have we actually explored? Statistically none of if. How can that be compelling evidence that no life exists? Let's see, we haven't looked anywhere and as a result we haven't found anything, therefore nothing exists.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by sjf911

Creation has absolutely no supporting evidence and cannot be considered of equal probability to evolution which has an enormous body of evidence.

That enormous body of evidence exists only here on Earth as far as we know. I have no disagreement that evolution exists. It is obvious that life forms evolve. The question of origin remains. I have no allegiance to either theory, but they are both theories. It is my assertion that Evolution will be significantly bolstered by the discovery of life elsewhere that has also evolved. To claim that evolution holds a place of higher intellect than creation, when the question of origin remains unanswered, is as foolish as to assert creation is the only answer.

[Jim Richards]

The question of origin is separate from the process of evolution. Why force an artificial constraint on this issue?

[jeffgrant]

To quote Penn and Teller, "The Bible is Bull****."

See here for details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

[nostatic]

Xenu is not pleased. You will rue the day...

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by ZOANAS

That enormous body of evidence exists only here on Earth as far as we know. I have no disagreement that evolution exists. It is obvious that life forms evolve. The question of origin remains. I have no allegiance to either theory, but they are both theories. It is my assertion that Evolution will be significantly bolstered by the discovery of life elsewhere that has also evolved. To claim that evolution holds a place of higher intellect than creation, when the question of origin remains unanswered, is as foolish as to assert creation is the only answer.

No matter what we find in the rest of the universe, creationists will merely claim it was placed there at the same time as the earth. They don't care about the facts or evidence. If it contradicts their literal reading of the bible, it is wrong.

You still seem to be confusing abiogenesis with evolution and ignorant of the meaning of a "scientific theory". ID/creationism is an hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

Let's see, we have several hundred years of acquired data all supporting evolution from a common ancestor but only untestable fairy-tales to support creation.

Do you honestly believe that both options are of equal probability and deserve equal time. How about all of the other creation myths outside of the Abrahamic ones? Shouldn't we then include those as being of equal likelihood? Shouldn't we therefore give equal credence to the FSM theory of gravity?

[Rodsrsr]

[QUOTE=IROC;3902211]It's obvious you completely misunderstand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is science's explanation for the diversity of life on Earth after life began. It says nothing about the origins of life.
Were finally making some headway! Thats what I have been saying all along. It only took 15 pages of posts to get you to admit that. Now if you can only get the rest of your crew on the same page. This is the very premise of the thread. I.D. is a viable explanation for the origins of life. Evolution cannot account for the "origins" of life, only the development of life. (micro) So unless someone has another explanation that can be proved you must lead I.D on the table.

Now since no one has any proof, you can just post another cute little picture. These are always the next best thing to a good rebuttal.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

Thats what I have been saying all along.

Actually it isn't what you've been saying all along. You constantly rail against evolution. Go back and read what you wrote. Now you're even putting words in your own mouth.

So did you ever get around to posting your scientific background? I believe you previously accused people here of not having sufficient training to intelligently discuss this topic and I responded to your challenge.

[kstar]

Page 2, posted by yours truly:

It's "abiogenesis" and evolution does not, nor has it ever addressed how life started.

It's a simple fact that every poster here with any knowledge of evolution is aware of - this fact has been stated over and over and over in this thread.

Aside: I couldn't sit out any longer, so one point to the troll.

Best,

Kurt

[sjf911]

[QUOTE=Rodsrsr;3902339]

Originally Posted by IROC

It's obvious you completely misunderstand the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is science's explanation for the diversity of life on Earth after life began. It says nothing about the origins of life.
Were finally making some headway! Thats what I have been saying all along. It only took 15 pages of posts to get you to admit that. Now if you can only get the rest of your crew on the same page. This is the very premise of the thread. I.D. is a viable explanation for the origins of life. Evolution cannot account for the "origins" of life, only the development of life. (micro) So unless someone has another explanation that can be proved you must lead I.D on the table.

Now since no one has any proof, you can just post another cute little picture. These are always the next best thing to a good rebuttal.

Now who is being intellectually dishonest? Evolution is about the common heritage of all extant and extinct animals/plants/fungi/bacteria/etc. back to the last common ancestor several billion years ago or more. Abiogenesis is about how we got from the early earth geochemical processes to the first recognizable self-replicating metabolic life form (not necessarily the LUCA).
ID is most commonly deployed against evolution (Darwinism) not abiogenesis, although it seems creationists can't differentiate between the two.
May I remind you that the title of your thread starts with "Evolutionists", not Abiogenesists.

[Rodsrsr]

So did you ever get around to posting your scientific background? I believe you previously accused people here of not having sufficient training to intelligently discuss this topic and I responded to your challenge.[/QUOTE]


I think you are the one that needs to read their own posts. Go read #89. My posts about people not having sufficient training were obviously a sarcastic response to your implication that anyone who disagrees with you on this topic needs to have an advanced scientific degree. Why don't you ask all of your fellow proponents if they have advanced degrees in order to accept the theory of evolution. But of course that wouldn't be fair, because if you believe in it than no degree is needed to understand what it is you are believing in, but dare to question it and you need an advanced scientific degree. I guess this explains why so many people are in agreement with you here.

[nostatic]

they are not the ones trying to overturn hundreds of years of scientific work. You are. Hence the higher standard.

Obviously sarcastic? I think you just took your shot and it backfired. Don't bring an intelligently designed knife to a gunfight...

[Rodsrsr]

[QUOTE=sjf911;3902381]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

Now who is being intellectually dishonest? Evolution is about the common heritage of all extant and extinct animals/plants/fungi/bacteria/etc. back to the last common ancestor several billion years ago or more. Abiogenesis is about how we got from the early earth geochemical processes to the first recognizable self-replicating metabolic life form (not necessarily the LUCA).
ID is most commonly deployed against evolution (Darwinism) not abiogenesis, although it seems creationists can't differentiate between the two.
May I remind you that the title of your thread starts with "Evolutionists", not Abiogenesists.

I didn't mention "ABIOGENESIS" because nobody views that as a credible theory anymore. I doubt most people who don't know the basics about evolution would even recognize the term. I'm glad to see that you are now dertermining where I.D. can be deployed. But if like to add Abiogenesis along with evolution as another non credible explanation for how life began, I am in full agreement with you.

[Rodsrsr]

Originally Posted by nostatic

they are not the ones trying to overturn hundreds of years of scientific work. You are. Hence the higher standard.

Obviously sarcastic? I think you just took your shot and it backfired. Don't bring an intelligently designed knife to a gunfight...

Im not trying to overturn anything. Is that why you feel so threatened? It is only a fact, because if you cannot provide a 100% proof positive answer than you need to leave I.D as a possibility. Remember we have the same evidence you have, it it only interpreted differently. Until you can say that you have undeniably discovered the cause of life than you have no right to deny I.D. So for this fight, a knife is more than fair when your opponent is yielding a stick.

[nostatic]

I'm threatened by scientific illiteracy in this country. I'm threatened by a lack of analysis and critical thinking skills. These are a clear and present danger, and are part of what is responsible for the US becoming non-competitive in a global market.

ID has no basis in science and does not belong in the classroom. You want to teach it at home to your kids, fine. You want to teach it in a religious school, be my guest. But it does not belong in a science class.

I cannot provide 100% proof positive. That isn't how science works. But you wouldn't know that because evidently you learn your science from bad documentary films.

The "cause of life" is fodder for philosophy. How it works is science. I have my own theories and beliefs. But I work very hard to differentiate between the two.

[Rodsrsr]

A recap from nostatic:
We know that evolution cannot explain the beginnings of life.
We actually cant explain the beginnings of life, because we don't know.
We have done all the studying for you, so you only need to believe us.
Our theories change all the time, but we ask that you just believe.
Our latest theory is that intelligent aliens possibly "seeded" the planet which started the evolution process.
We evolved from sponges, I mean microbes, I mean crystals.
There "is" a missing ape-man link, we just haven't found it yet.
T-Rex is now a pigeon.
We will eventually keep evolving, and maybe we will be super people one day.
Do not question this, just believe.
We will promote these ideas in the public schools, so you will grow up being conditioned to believe in this.
If you question any of the above, you need to have an advanced science degree first because this is all fact and the burden of proof is on you to disprove that we will turn into super people one day.

[RWebb]

In fact the abiotic to biotic transition has been explained by evolution.

But why startle the faithful with facts...