Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Science has already voided many of the claims made in the bible such as 1) age of the earth, and 2) the world flood. We are hopeful that some day, science will find the origin of life. You aren't going to find it in the bible which has already been proven to be in error on many of its claims.

The bible is not a scientific treatise, CI. And scientists may have danced around the issues you have mentioned; but the music plays a different tune.

real, There are only two choices on the question of life's origin; creation or evolution...

Parados' basic point is that he wants to limit the discussion of evolution on this thread to eliminate discussion of early life's origin.

I showed that highly regarded (evolutionary) scientists do not share his approach.

I won't take the time to post a textbook to suit such intellectual pretense as that.

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Science has already voided many of the claims made in the bible such as 1) age of the earth, and 2) the world flood. We are hopeful that some day, science will find the origin of life. You aren't going to find it in the bible which has already been proven to be in error on many of its claims.

The bible is not a scientific treatise, CI. And scientists may have danced around the issues you have mentioned; but the music plays a different tune.

No, it's not a scientific treatise, but god is supposed to be the top dog of scientific knowledge. Deflates that image - too often.

...I mean, how much physics does one need to understand in order to read his new car service manual?

cicerone imposter wrote:

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Science has already voided many of the claims made in the bible such as 1) age of the earth, and 2) the world flood. We are hopeful that some day, science will find the origin of life. You aren't going to find it in the bible which has already been proven to be in error on many of its claims.

The bible is not a scientific treatise, CI. And scientists may have danced around the issues you have mentioned; but the music plays a different tune.

No, it's not a scientific treatise, but god is supposed to be the top dog of scientific knowledge. Deflates that image - too often.

And if God were to explain his sublime reasoning, what language would you deem sufficient for the most common of us to understand?

I mean, how much physics does one need to understand in order to read his new car service manual?

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Science has already voided many of the claims made in the bible such as 1) age of the earth, and 2) the world flood. We are hopeful that some day, science will find the origin of life. You aren't going to find it in the bible which has already been proven to be in error on many of its claims.

The bible is not a scientific treatise, CI. And scientists may have danced around the issues you have mentioned; but the music plays a different tune.

No, it's not a scientific treatise, but god is supposed to be the top dog of scientific knowledge. Deflates that image - too often.

And if God were to explain his sublime reasoning, what language would you deem sufficient for the most common of us to understand?

I mean, how much physics does one need to understand in order to read his new car service manual?

neo, Excellent question! Why did god include so many errors, omissions and contradictions if he knew we mortal humans were of simple mind?

parados wrote:

And they teach evolution as part of a package called biology. Biology doesn't include Big bang or abiogenisis.

They teach it as part of science, which includes much more than biology.

parados wrote:

But still no text book to back up your original claim?

I don't have time to post a textbook for your pleasure. Check your state dept of Ed science standards.

I'll give you this though, you are persistent in trying to sidetrack the discussion so that you don't have to address the real issue.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

And they teach evolution as part of a package called biology. Biology doesn't include Big bang or abiogenisis.

They teach it as part of science, which includes much more than biology.

And English and Science are both part of education. Just because you want to define the subsets to try to make your point doesn't make your subset the correct one or the only one. No one would reasonably argue that fractions are taught in the same parcel as calculus even though both are math.

Quote:

parados wrote:

But still no text book to back up your original claim?

I don't have time to post a textbook for your pleasure. Check your state dept of Ed science standards.

I did and evolution of species is under the biology section while big bang is under cosmology. I can't find any state curriculum that puts the big bang theory in biology.

Quote:

I'll give you this though, you are persistent in trying to sidetrack the discussion so that you don't have to address the real issue.

Yeah and meanwhile you haven't provided any support but keep telling me it "must be so" simply because you say it is. You attempted to sidetrack by claiming all science is tied to the theory of evolution.

CI,

Parados' basic point is that he wants to limit the discussion of evolution on this thread to eliminate discussion of early life's origin.

I showed that highly regarded (evolutionary) scientists do not share his approach.

I won't take the time to post a textbook to suit such intellectual pretense as that.

And if you share his view, then consider yourself included.

real life wrote:

CI,

Parados' basic point is that he wants to limit the discussion of evolution on this thread to eliminate discussion of early life's origin.

I showed that highly regarded (evolutionary) scientists do not share his approach.

I won't take the time to post a textbook to suit such intellectual pretense as that.

And if you share his view, then consider yourself included.

No, you didn't show anything since the piece you posted from without attribution....

farmerman, One of the few times I disagree with you.

The functioning of living cells is amazing. From the operations of RNA and ribosomes in protein synthesis to the "walking" of myosin molecules along actin filaments to generate muscle contractions, innumerable molecules of all levels of complexity come together in the remarkable dance that keeps us alive.

Darwinian evolution accounts for how such intricate structures and processes can arise once there is a replicator capable of undergoing mutation and natural selection, but how could the first replicator have formed? [/b]Cells require proteins (enzymes) to replicate DNA, and they require DNA to carry the recipes for building the right proteins. Which came first? The protein or the DNA? Just how did life get its start?

For about two decades, many scientists have envisaged an "RNA World" as the way out of this chicken-and-egg dilemma. RNA, it turns out, can perform the enzymatic functions of proteins as well as its better known role of carrying genetic information. Thus, if self-replicating RNA could be formed in Earth's primordial environment, evolution could then take over and ultimately result in the protein-DNA-RNA-based life we know today.

Some, such as Shapiro, argue that that is a big "if."

See what Shapiro has to say, and join in the discussion. Enjoy!

RL is trying to make a simplistic point that such life was unable to reproduce. Duhhh.