Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you read the article your linked? You did not did you. This is not life.

Let's break it down:

How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch

If you notice it clearly says "life-like." This does not mean or imply it is life, but something like life. Sort of like Velveeta isn't cheese, but something kind of like cheese.

Every decade science is getting closer closer

This means he acknowledges that life has not yet been created in such a manner, but that scientists are getting closer.

I suspect it won't be long.

Again he states that he is aware scientists have not yet made life, but life-like cells.
As for the article itself, the closest to "living cells" that it gets to claiming is "synthetic cells."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's break it down:

If you notice it clearly says "life-like." This does not mean or imply it is life, but something like life. Sort of like Velveeta isn't cheese, but something kind of like cheese.

This means he acknowledges that life has not yet been created in such a manner, but that scientists are getting closer.

Again he states that he is aware scientists have not yet made life, but life-like cells.
As for the article itself, the closest to "living cells" that it gets to claiming is "synthetic cells."

I would have just liked this, but that Velveeta reference made me laugh and was a very good analogy.

 

[3rdAngel]

Where did you get the idea that there was an effort in science to establish proofs?

Science is all about establishing proof or no proof.

What is it about evolution and the origin of life that makes you think they are the same thing?

Can't have the one without the other.

What do you mean by evidence being proven false?

Sometimes within science an outcome can lead to a false positive or meaning the experimentation was not done conclusively because the data collected does not satisfy the parameters of the hypothesis being put forward. As more research is conducted this can lead to an different understanding within science to that which was first promoted.

What are examples of evidence within science that you consider to be causing such conflict that we cannot except the theory of evolution as a the explanation for the evidence?

No clear concensus on the definitions on what life actually is
No evidence as to the beginning of life and it's origin
Life is the very foundation of evolution and if life is not understood by science than how can you build the platform of evolution when the very origin of life is so poorly understood?

Where did you get the idea that some or all of science is directed to proving or disproving God? What evidence do you have to support the assertion that leads to your claim regarding the state of knowledge in genetics?

I never had such ideas that science is directed to proviing or disproving God. You made these assumptions not me when I posted earlier that many athiests and agnostics try to use science as a crutch for their religion not to believe in God. Genetics in only one discipline within science that cannot prove the origin of life.

What do you mean about all science being woven collectively into a whole to support an understanding of genetics. What aspects of genetics do you see as needing this global support for understanding?

There are many life sciences (astrobiology, biology, cell biology, developmental biology, micobiology, biopysics, biochemistry, biomechanics, ecology, genetics, histology, neuroscience, population biology, quantum biology, structural biology, systems biology, Zoology and the many sub branches within these and the many more disciplines not listed. We need a collective approach within the sciences to understand the origin of life and even then we may not get the right answers if the foundations we are building from are not right.

Based on all the evidence, no one knows what the origin of life is. We do not know if it is a natural origin or if it is a divine origin. We do not have any evidence that it occurred as it is described in Genesis and there is much evidence that contradicts that particular version, though I know that it is often deified and viewed as immutable.

PRECISELY! THIS IS MY POINT AND WHY I POSTED

Do you have evidence that Genesis occurred as described and what explanations do you have for the evidence that contradicts Genesis so that it is now in line with Genesis?

No I do not need to. Do you have any evidence that as to what is the origin of life? You do not do you. Than why all the controversy if no one understands the origin of life. You cannot argue one way or another.

The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science and more evidence exists on its behalf than any other theory of science. The theory of gravity that is widely accepted does not have an equal volume of evidence supporting it and there are many aspects of gravity that we do not understand. Are you saying that we should reject the former, but continue to accept the latter or should we reject both, since, by your standard, neither of them can be proved.

I do not see it this way as the origin of life is not understood so how can there be a theory of evolution when we do not know what the origin of life is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

[QUOTE="Dan From Smithville, post: 6203613, member: 62192"

I know some microbiologists too. Molecular biologists. Paleontologists. Geologists. Geneticists. And a whole bunch of others. They have different beliefs. None of them cite their beliefs to support their science.

Anyone who does is a fraud.[/QUOTE]
Yes.

Even Sanford did not include his religious views in his scientific papers.

 

[3rdAngel]

Let's break it down:

If you notice it clearly says "life-like." This does not mean or imply it is life, but something like life. Sort of like Velveeta isn't cheese, but something kind of like cheese.

This means he acknowledges that life has not yet been created in such a manner, but that scientists are getting closer.

Again he states that he is aware scientists have not yet made life, but life-like cells.
As for the article itself, the closest to "living cells" that it gets to claiming is "synthetic cells."

Good than we agree science does not know the origin of life. If science does not know or can clearly define what the origin of life is what hope is there for evolution of which the origin of life is the foundation? Evolution builds off an unknown variable (origin of life).

 

[Audie]

Science is all about establishing proof or no proof.



Can't have the one without the other.



Sometimes within science an outcome can lead to a false positive or meaning the experimentation was not done conclusively because the data collected does not satisfy the parameters of the hypothesis being put forward. As more research is conducted this can lead to an different understanding within science to that which was first promoted.



No clear concensus on the definitions on what life actually is
No evidence as to the beginning of life and it's origin
Life is the very foundation of evolution and if life is not understood by science than how can you build the platform of evolution when the very origin of life is so poorly understood?



I never had such ideas that science is directed to proviing or disproving God. You made these assumptions not me when I posted earlier that many athiests and agnostics try to use science as a crutch for their religion not to believe in God. Genetics in only one discipline within science that cannot prove the origin of life.



There are many life sciences (astrobiology, biology, cell biology, developmental biology, micobiology, biopysics, biochemistry, biomechanics, ecology, genetics, histology, neuroscience, population biology, quantum biology, structural biology, systems biology, Zoology and the many sub branches within these and the many more disciplines not listed. We need a collective approach within the sciences to understand the origin of life and even then we may not get the right answers if the foundations we are building from are not right.



PRECISELY! THIS IS MY POINT AND WHY I POSTED



No I do not need to. Do you have any evidence that as to what is the origin of life? You do not do you. Than why all the controversy if no one understands the origin of life. You cannot argue one way or another.



I do not see it this way as the origin of life is not understood so how can there be a theory of evolution when we do not know what the origin of life is?

Actually no. Science does not do proof.
Google it, since you wont believe me,

See if you can get that one thing straight, that would
let us knos if it is worth going to the next mistake.

 

[3rdAngel]

Actually no. Science does not do proof.
Google it, since you wont believe me,

See if you can get that one thing straight, that would
let us knos if it is worth going to the next mistake.

Sorry you may need to explain yourself a little better. Science does not prove?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good than we agree science does not know the origin of life. If science does not know or can clearly define what the origin of life is what hope is there for evolution of which the origin of life is the foundation? Evolution builds off an unknown variable (origin of life).

Evolution just simply does not concern itself with how life got here. We could have been crapped out by Cthulhu, and it effects the theory of evolution none. That is because evolution deals with how life developed once it was here. The origins of life will be an entirely different theory, pretty much independent of theory of evolution.

 

[Audie]

Sorry you may need to explain yourself a little better. Science does not prove?

I am using a tiny balky tablet.

Google "can science prove"

The Forbes article, perhaps.

Takes a bit to wrap your head around the
concept, and discsrd old errors.

Give it a try!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is all about establishing proof or no proof.

No it is not and never has been. Where did you come up with that?

Can't have the one without the other.

That does not make them the same thing. You can have evolution even if we discover that the origin of life is divine. The evidence still supports evolution.

Sometimes within science an outcome can lead to a false positive or meaning the experimentation was not done conclusively because the data collected does not satisfy the parameters of the hypothesis being put forward. As more research is conducted this can lead to an different understanding within science to that which was first promoted.

I am aware of the concept of false positive. Being aware of that does not mean that the material being discussed is the result of a false positive. False positives arise from errors in methodology and not the hypotheses being tested. Even a false positive is evidence, and it is not changed. Are you familiar with what evidence means?

It is true that if we find that false positives have occurred, methodology needs to be reconsidered.

Regardless, you are saying that this has taken place and nothing about specific instances taking place. Do you realize this sounds like you are aware of the possibility of something and then asserting that it has occurred based only on knowledge that it is possible. Also, you are trying to conclude that every observation for 150 years has been a false positive or at least the majority have. That is not reasonable and nothing supports it.

No clear concensus on the definitions on what life actually is

You need to support this and show that the definitions of life that we have are insufficient.

No evidence as to the beginning of life and it's origin

Evolution is independent of the origin of life and knowledge of the origin is not required to demonstrate evolution.

Life is the very foundation of evolution and if life is not understood by science than how can you build the platform of evolution when the very origin of life is so poorly understood?

Living things and heredity are the foundations of evolution, but knowing how that life arrived here is not.

I never had such ideas that science is directed to proviing or disproving God. You made these assumptions not me when I posted earlier that many athiests and agnostics try to use science as a crutch for their religion not to believe in God. Genetics in only one discipline within science that cannot prove the origin of life.

I did not. My questions--not assumptions--come directly from your posts. Do you even read your own posts?

It sounds like you have established a line of evidence against an assertion no one is making.

There are many life sciences (astrobiology, biology, cell biology, developmental biology, micobiology, biopysics, biochemistry, biomechanics, ecology, genetics, histology, neuroscience, population biology, quantum biology, structural biology, systems biology, Zoology and the many sub branches within these and the many more disciplines not listed. We need a collective approach within the sciences to understand the origin of life and even then we may not get the right answers if the foundations we are building from are not right.

I do not think if astrobiologists do not pull their weight, that we will not be able to discover anything about the origin of life because of that failure. You are being too vague to have any meaning here, either positive or negative. Scientific information is publicized and made widely available. Collaborations between scientists are vastly greater than they have ever been. It is not uncommon to see reports now, where there are 100 authors, sometimes more.

PRECISELY! THIS IS MY POINT AND WHY I POSTED

Is it. There seems to be some other reason, since you are agreeing that no one claims to know how life originated.

No I do not need to. Do you have any evidence that as to what is the origin of life? You do not do you. Than why all the controversy if no one understands the origin of life. You cannot argue one way or another.

Then you agree that Genesis is allegory and not a true life, word for word retelling of events that actually happened. Did you not mention something that would lead me and others to believe that you took the Bible literally? Like a lot of material that says that?

I never said that the origin of life leads to a rejection of Genesis. Are you sure you are reading my posts? Maybe it is comprehension? Other evidence that contradicts Genesis. Do you have an explanation for that evidence? Age of the earth. The fossil record. No mention of vast faunas that formerly lived on Earth. You know. Things like that.

Arguing two different directions is not my problem as a supporter. Only as a viewer of other's material.

I do not see it this way as the origin of life is not understood so how can there be a theory of evolution when we do not know what the origin of life is?

There can be a theory of evolution, because it is not a theory of the origin of life. It is a theory of the relationships and diversity of life. You said this yourself, so I am having trouble with this roundabout claim.

Is the theory of evolution about life that already exists? Yes. Is there any reason to conclude that the theory is tied to a particular origin of life? No.

What else do you need to know?

 

[Audie]

Evolution just simply does not concern itself with how life got here. We could have been crapped out by Cthulhu, and it effects the theory of evolution none. That is because evolution deals with how life developed once it was here. The origins of life will be an entirely different theory, pretty much independent of theory of evolution.

Lets let him get the thing about science and proof straight first.

ETA. Dan? You too? "Proof" first? Harder stuff
next if that gets worked through?

 

[3rdAngel]

Evolution just simply does not concern itself with how life got here. We could have been crapped out by Cthulhu, and it effects the theory of evolution none. That is because evolution deals with how life developed once it was here. The origins of life will be an entirely different theory, pretty much independent of theory of evolution.

Evolution deals with evolving life over time therefore builds off the origin of life which is not understood. If you cannot get your foundations right how can you build your house?

 

[3rdAngel]

I am using a tiny balky tablet.

Google "can science prove"

The Forbes article, perhaps.

Takes a bit to wrap your head around the
concept, and discsrd old errors.

Give it a try!

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked. Are you getting confused with scientific method?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good than we agree science does not know the origin of life. If science does not know or can clearly define what the origin of life is what hope is there for evolution of which the origin of life is the foundation? Evolution builds off an unknown variable (origin of life).

I am not sure why you have gone to these lengths to get everyone to agree with something that no one is disagreeing with.

I see. The old conflation switcharro. If we do not have evidence for one phenomenon, then we can disregard a related, but independent phenomenon, despite all evidence supporting the latter.

 

[Audie]

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked. Are you getting confused with scientific method?

No, but if you are not going to bother
to try to learn anything, I surely cannot
be bothered to do any more for you.

You did not take a minute to google,
did you.

Are you going to?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked. Are you getting confused with scientific method?

Scientists test hypotheses that are either rejected or accept and not proven.

I think it is a little early for you to start claiming an understanding of the scientific method. I believe your level of understanding of science and the scientific method is already established and it is not as high as you had hoped.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your confused science proves or disproves the hypothesis being asked. Are you getting confused with scientific method?

The first line from the article you linked. You may notice the absence of the use of the word proof.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis." From the previously linked Wikipedia article on scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The article goes on to clarify that proof is not a part of empirical science.

Interestingly, you must have named your link yourself--how intellectually honest of you--since a search for that string did not reveal it existing in the article.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, but if you are not going to bother
to try to learn anything, I surely cannot
be bothered to do any more for you.

You did not take a minute to google,
did you.

Are you going to?

And yet again, we are subjected to what is being passed off as intellectual honesty, but is really deceit. And not even any effort to hide it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution deals with evolving life over time therefore builds off the origin of life which is not understood. If you cannot get your foundations right how can you build your house?

All the foundation that evolution requires from life is that it exist and be able to acquire and pass on genetic variation.

What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lets let him get the thing about science and proof straight first.

ETA. Dan? You too? "Proof" first? Harder stuff
next if that gets worked through?

I agree, but I need to be convinced that anything will actually be done on his part. He does not seem interested in learning. Only in ramming his erroneous notions through no matter what for the big win.