Peez

Actually, I have been trying to answer them on that thread. I heard I believe Richard Dawkins say something like there are no gods. If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to be a little more specific. In any event, as far as I know there was little or no free oxygen when life first appeared on this planet. It is my experience that creationists generally think that way: they are only interested in finding "holes" rather than actually learning about evolution or <gasp> coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. Anyhow, it is easy to sit back and criticize others, much harder to support your own position (especially when that position is as flimsy as the creationist one). scigirl has already dealt with this very well, but I will add that scientists do not think that any particular mechanism of abiogenesis is a fact, but we do consider common descent to be a fact. Given that you apparently do not understand science at all, that is a rather arrogant statement. Just because someone believed something, or that they call it "science" does not make it science (witness "creation science"). It is hard to see what you are getting at, since scientists are the first to state that science does not always get it right the first time (of course, it is the scientists who detect the errors, not some ideologically-motivated critic). Whatever. He can claim it all he wants, but you are obviously intellectually lazy (or worse) if you cannot even bother to check that out. No, alchemy was never a science. What makes you think that we haven't? You don't even bother to read creationist sources, let alone scientific ones. In what sense are we excluding a supernatural origin for life? There may well have been a supernatural agency involved, but we cannot test such hypotheses in science. Science, by definition, deals with natural phenomena. Heck, even evolution (as fact and theory) is not affected by a supernatural origin of life. Humans cannot prove anything, except possibly their own individual existence. Let me repeat that, because you seem to be confused about it: humans cannot prove anything. If something simply cannot be disproved, then it cannot be addressed by science.

Peez

[edited for stubborn formatting]
[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>

Mageth

I don't think the fact that abiogenesis is a science is at all relevant if it turns out that abiogenesis is wrong.

AFAIK, the only way to prove abiogenisis wrong is to prove some form of special creation right. Care to try? And it must be done using scientific methods. Magical fairy tales written 3500 years ago are not science.

What if in 1000 years no one ever comes up with a single workable hypothesis as to the nature of the origin of life? Would we still have to exclude a supernatural origin?

It doesn't matter if in 1000 years no accepted theory of abiogenisis has been settled on. All that would mean is that we still wouldn't have an accepted theory, and would not lead to science "giving up" and reverting to a supernatural explanation. Including a supernatural origin would require scientific evidence supporting such an explanation. Care to provide some?

Mageth

sci-girl in answer to all your questions, I don't know. I'm not here to promote my theories, I'm here to learn how to poke holes in yours.

Interesting. Scientists as well look for "holes" in theories. That's how science advances and doesn't stay stuck in one place. Look at Einstein for a great example - Newtonian physics had some "holes" which he nicely filled in. His theories have likewise been scrutinized and improved upon by other scientists. Your "race science" is another example. Science saw the flaws in the superior/inferior race theories and debunked them a long time ago.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ah, my favorite all time question. What if...?

I just love how the justification is always, "Since you can't tell me the answers, mystical fairy god kings magically blinked it all into existence."

If only the mind could evolve...

pseudobug

luv-luv, you're a good person whose heart is in the right place. I've figured that out over the last three months in the debates with you and randman on Zigga Zoomba. I also think you truly want to learn a little about what you are asking.

I hope you see now that what I told you months ago about abiogenesis being an entirely different matter than the theory of evolution is true. I hope you also recall the extreme contortions I went through with you, randman and others about trying to differentiate between science and religious faith. They address two different issues in completely different ways.

I wasn't lying to you in December on ZZL, and these folks here are not lying to you now.

The same cannot be said for randman.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

MrDarwin

Luvluv, let me ask you this: if life arose spontaneously--entirely naturally, without any outside help--or if it was created intentionally, by whomever or whatever, would it make any difference in how we see and interpret the fossil record, and how we understand how life has changed and diversified since then? Personally I don't think it would, and I think the origin of life, while a very interesting question, ultimately has little or no bearing on the subsequent history of life on this planet.