yes I just watched ben steins movie
all of these answers are great
secret sauce is right on the money
darwinism and creation are two differant subjects…….
sometimes I wish I would think a little more before I post a question
what I want to say is:
I belive God made life and everything that life provides and IS…….
so.so God also made evolution, or
God is evolution, He is currently working on His big project
all that sxxx is FAKE made up
No one knows. One theory is that the ocean was violent and the waves combined and tore apart molecules until the first living organism existed. We can know for certain was is right before, and right after. The exact moment is more difficult to understand. I’m sure that if scientists create life from molecules in a lab we will be more certain.
Why do they deny things like that? And yet they shout at us with fiery tongues and words with a utmost hatred saying we deny the truth.
So to answer another question, Ignorance is bliss. Until you die.
–
I do think they believe that lighting struck a puddle of mud of something
This has nothing to do with Darwinism!
Darwinism is about *EVOLUTION*, not the origins of life!
Even in the dishonestly edited interview with Richard Dawkins in the movie, Dawkins makes this point. He very clearly says that we don’t *know* how the first life form became alive, but that this doesn’t affect Darwin’s theory of *evolution* AT ALL … because Darwin’s theory of evolution is about how life *changes* (evolves), not how life *began*.
—- {edit … for Wawtur’s post*} —–
>”Science is tentative at best. ”
Words that could only be written by someone who despises science!
The right word is *contingent*, not “tentative.” The fact that all ideas can be questioned is precisely the biggest *strength* of science, it’s why science *progresses* … it does NOT mean that scientists do not hold a high degree of *confidence* in those ideas … i.e. that they are “tentative.” We don’t exactly send men to the moon, put passengers on a jet-liner, or send X-rays through a patient’s body based on “tentative” science!
>”Consensus is no measure of factuality.”
But the goal of science is NOT “factuality” (which is an a undefinable standard), but *understanding*! People who don’t get this, don’t get *SCIENCE*.
>”When too many anomalies accumulate, a scientific revolution may occur, and a new paradigm may take its place.”
And that is why the complete *lack* of accumulated anomalies in evolutionary theory makes it one of the strongest theories in the history of science. The theory of *gravity* has more anomalies than evolution has!
>”If you compromise the Bible with the latest paradigm, your position could become a casualty of the next one.”
An excellent point! That is precisely why the Bible should not be subjected to the scientific method. You can’t have it both ways … you can’t bring the Bible into science, and not accept the *contingency* (the possibility that it can be revised or even discarded) that comes with it.
>”The Bible has outlasted a great many paradigms.”
That track record can only last as long as it is not treated like a scientific paradigm itself. As a source of inspiration and moral guidance, it can be eternal. As a scientific paradigm, it would be just as subject to test, revision, or disproof as any other scientific paradigm. It don’t think that’s what you want.
Darwin did not address first cause.
‘On the Origin of Species’ wasn’t intended to explain the origins of life, only the origin of species. Like it says in the title.
First cause is still open to speculation.
Maybe God did it?
Science is tentative at best. Consensus is no measure of factuality. Even long-trusted scientific theories can be challenged by anomalies. As Thomas Kuhn and subsequent philosophers of science have pointed out, scientists typically work within paradigms, or accepted explanatory frameworks. Anomalies are surprises that don’t fit the paradigm. When too many anomalies accumulate, a scientific revolution may occur, and a new paradigm may take its place. If you compromise the Bible with the latest paradigm, your position could become a casualty of the next one. The Bible has outlasted a great many paradigms. Considering its Author, that’s no surprise.
The Deity, ET, knelt down on the shore and opened a bottle of super charged molecules. He read the directions: Spread evenly over the surface of waters. And it was good. It came to pass, all life sprung from the molecules and populated the oceans and fields of the land. The Deity returned now and again, adjusted his creations to the niches they aspired. And he took an ape and caused his genetic makeup to be instilled in it, to be more like him.
Magic! Which is as likely as some of the doofus speculation they have come up with over the years. Truth is that, though they have made up soups of amino acids–all the right ones–and bombarded, tickled and otherwise stimulated said amino acids with just about everything from chemical catalysts to x-rays, and everything between, they have never gotten anything but a really dense amino sludge. Even the addition of–obviously–preexisting DNA hasn’t gotten them any closer to anything resembling an organism.
Face it: it was either magic, or it was God.
I am still looking for the missing link to the cow.
Trouble is cows seem to have always been cows. They have evolved into big ones, short ones, little ones, black ones, white ones, brown ones, long horned ones, short horned ones, but they are all still cows. Not a single one turned into an alligator.
Ben Stein’s movie is a sad joke. Plucking selected quotes out of context to twist the speaker’s or author’s meaning is what some call “willful misquotation”. Of course, my grandmother would have called it “lying”. And it is unfortunately a common practice by those trying to demonstrate some great debate among scientists on the validity of evolution.
Then of course there is tediously flogged strawman of “evolution is false because can’t explain how the first life started.” That’s like saying “genetics is false because it can’t explain how stars are formed”. Secretsauce gets this one exactly right.
Wawtur has pasted in the same paragraph again. The Bible has lasted ONLY when not held to rules of evidence. As in Kitzmiller v Dover, when faith is forced to present evidence, it loses.
ART – I suppose you’re right. The only answer is that a breeding pair of Guernseys suddenly winked into existence in a flash of divine light. I wonder if the barn was burned when it happened. Some questions, though, about the fossil record. How many people do you know who have died and been fossilized? What percentage of life gets fossilized? Instead of pointing to one species and saying “there’s no fossil of that”, why not point to an existing fossil and say “that doesn’t fit evolutionary theory”? Find that fossil and focus on it – you’ll make a much more interesting argument.
Kaththea – are you really betting science will never succeed in creating proto-life? Look out the window at the number of things once attributed to God and now understood by science. Rational thought and human curiosity have a pretty good track record over the past 1000 years.
Abiogenesis.
Lots of hypothesis, some experiments showing the rise of organic Chemistry, but no answer yet.
Some of the difficulties include modeling the early earth. Firstly there are very few “old” rocks on the earths surface, plate tectonics takes care of that so we struggle with basic information on what the atmosphere was like, how much water was present, surface temperature, etc.
The point is that Mr Stein would have us believe that “God did it” and then give up looking, where as science says “interesting problem” and tries to find the potential mechanisms. Science will one day fins a suitable answer, how do we know this well two reasons.
1. It had to have happened – the anthropological principle, we’re here because it did and so it must be possible to find out why.
2. The history of modern science shows that eventually it finds a suitable explanation.
Before Darwin’s idea we didn’t have an answer to how we got here, but now we do. Before the 1800′s we didn’t even know what most elements were. The very idea of plate tectonics has only been accepted for the last 50 years. The Snowball earth theory for considerably less than that.
What Stein and his mob do is find where honest scientists say we don’t know yet and then use it to “prove” that it must have happened the way they say, but where is their proof? There ideas have less support than virtually all the abiogenisis theories.