He asked why IDists present another theory. I answered by saying that they offer another theory because the present theory (evolution) doesn't not present an answer to all questions posed.
Am I misunderstanding you? Also, keep the name-calling to yourself, I'm trying for a non-inflammatory thread here. Besides, insults just make for a flamewar, and do nothing to help the arguments of your side.
Oh man, you missed the bus.:-) The/. user "mcc" and I just had a very long discussion on the very article you point to. He had mentioned the same article as you.
Bottom line: that experiment doesn't even claim to create proteins (go read it for yourself), but only amino acids. The article ends up suggesting life came from Mars. Heh.
However, they do provide an excellent basis for the idea abiogenesis is plausible.
I would agree that it is plausible, given the right conditions. But until then, it's still a theory that proteins can come from nothing. And from there, don't we still have to prove that these proteins can form nucliec acids that somehow start replicating on their own?
Me: if the Aristotlian metaphysics theory does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories is beneficial.
You: This is sloppy thinking. We know that Aristotlian metaphysics doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Plato's philosophers for "benefits." We know Aristotle doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Plato's old theories. Now, people that don't believe in Aristotle's metaphyics might contribute to the further refinement of physics, but I doubt Newtonians will play much of a role in furthering our scientific understanding. New evidence, new interpretations of old evidence, refinement in methodology, etc. will further our understanding, the superstitution, sophistry, etc. that Newtonian phsyics supporters base themselves on will not. After all, we know that things fall to the ground because that is where they belong. This invisible "gravity" you speak of is unprovable, and not even a theory!
It's not myth, or 100% truth for that matter. It's a thought that might be true, at least partially, just as evolution is.
Take for example life. We observe that life always comes from other life. While evolution offers an explanation of how species formed from life, it doesn't offer an explanation of how life existed in the first place.
Intelligent Design, from my understanding (I'm a creationist, not an IDist), is that there is a force (assumingly, the author of the universe) that created this bit of life in the first place. Evolutionists don't have a unified front on this matter; some theorize the "lightning zapped primordial ooze, thus forming life" idea, but that, as mentioned before, goes against the observable fact that all life comes from other life.
Haha, I'm so glad I almost lived up to the intelligence standard!:-p Too bad I just fell short, eh?;-)
Cross-specie evolution is also a belief. I can theorize that the author of the universe created life (and from there, either he created all species or let some small bit of life evolve, or...), that is a theory.
My scientific basis? All life in this world comes from other life. That is observable. I theorize that since life must come from other life, there must be some unnatural (or supernatural) force that caused life to exist in the first place. I theorize there is such a force that caused life to exist out of nothing.
I disagree, there is a difference: while proteins are made up of amino acids, producing amino acids is still far from creating proteins out of inorganic material.
I'm not an IDist. Try to keep the conversation civil. As a deeply religious person myself, cursing other people and calling names does little to contribute to civility or your argument.
It seems to me that speciation is more than a human defined boundary; we can tell one specie from another solely by its DNA. But IANAB (biologist), so I'll leave it at that.
That article you link to is interesting, however, it didn't create self-replicating life. The article offers a possibility to life: ribozymes being the template and catylist for DNA (which synthesize proteins). However, the article admits, proteins require DNA, and DNA doesn't exist without proteins, thus a chicken and egg problem. What's more, the article admits that there hasn't been a single ribozyme found in nature that replicates itself.
The most this article proves is that we can produce amino acids, no actual proteins have been formed!
The article ends with a suggestion that life came from Mars. Brilliant, well that answers all questions, I guess we can go home now.
Creationism and ID also do not offer all the answers either.
It's not about which theory has more answers than the other. We know that evolution, creation, and ID all leave questions unanswered; what I am saying is that if a theory leaves a question unanswered, then we shouldn't limit students to one theory.
My guess is that IDists offer another theory because evolution doesn't have all the answers. Both ID and creation gives a theory that does offer the origin of species, whereas evolution, as you confirmed, does not.
In other words, any disproof of evolution does not prove any religious beliefs, period.
I agree. I'm just saying that evolution doesn't have the all the answers, as some seem to believe. And if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial.
It's more the frustration that some people will do anything to close their ears and eyes to anything that conflicts with their world view. That applies to both creationists and evolutionists, IMO.
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life. The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it? Considering we can't even explain with certainty how life started in the first place, it's naive to think evolution is the answer to everything; evolution may be what's happening to species now and in the past, but that doesn't explain where the species originated. I read recently in National Geographic a scientist who was quoted as saying that evolution is right, but as far as how life got here to evolve in the first place, we'll just "leave that up to priests and poets". Priests and poets!
What we're going to see in this Slashdot thread is a lot of "Creationists are stupid rednecks. Evolution is triumphant once again!". Lots of gloating and lots of mockery will be going on. No doubt, several ACs will reply to this post with personal insults because I disagree with their view of the world. All I can say is, don't assume anyone has all the answers, because no one, evolutionists or creationists, has the answers. And if we don't have all the answers, then analyzation and presentation of conflicting theories is both scientific and beneficial.
Huh? Most of the stuff I've read from Paul is very objective; despite running a Windows-centric site, he's not afraid to offer criticism where criticism is due (WinHEC Longhorn build, IE7, Longhorn in general), nor is he afraid to offer praise of the competition when that is due (his recent praise of Mac OS 10.3).
No it doesn't, and please stop anthropomorphizing it.
Open-source software advocates want information to be free, as do civil liberty groups and other political organizations that fall near the Slashdot line of thinking.
But to say information wants to be free is like saying my computer monitor wants to be plugged into a high-end video card: it may be better for all parties, but in the end, the monitor is just a monitor. Likewise, information is just information.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the civil and noninflammatory conversation. :-)
He asked why IDists present another theory. I answered by saying that they offer another theory because the present theory (evolution) doesn't not present an answer to all questions posed.
Am I misunderstanding you? Also, keep the name-calling to yourself, I'm trying for a non-inflammatory thread here. Besides, insults just make for a flamewar, and do nothing to help the arguments of your side.
Oh man, you missed the bus. :-) The /. user "mcc" and I just had a very long discussion on the very article you point to. He had mentioned the same article as you.
Bottom line: that experiment doesn't even claim to create proteins (go read it for yourself), but only amino acids. The article ends up suggesting life came from Mars. Heh.
However, they do provide an excellent basis for the idea abiogenesis is plausible.
I would agree that it is plausible, given the right conditions. But until then, it's still a theory that proteins can come from nothing. And from there, don't we still have to prove that these proteins can form nucliec acids that somehow start replicating on their own?
I'm not an IDist. I am a creationist. Visit my blog for more information.
Further, you're exactly what I suspected from the evolutionist camp: you don't agree with me so I'm going to insult you and call you names!
Such behavior neither helps civil discussions nor your arguments for that matter.
Me: if the Aristotlian metaphysics theory does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories is beneficial.
You: This is sloppy thinking. We know that Aristotlian metaphysics doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Plato's philosophers for "benefits." We know Aristotle doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Plato's old theories. Now, people that don't believe in Aristotle's metaphyics might contribute to the further refinement of physics, but I doubt Newtonians will play much of a role in furthering our scientific understanding. New evidence, new interpretations of old evidence, refinement in methodology, etc. will further our understanding, the superstitution, sophistry, etc. that Newtonian phsyics supporters base themselves on will not. After all, we know that things fall to the ground because that is where they belong. This invisible "gravity" you speak of is unprovable, and not even a theory!
It's not myth, or 100% truth for that matter. It's a thought that might be true, at least partially, just as evolution is.
Take for example life. We observe that life always comes from other life. While evolution offers an explanation of how species formed from life, it doesn't offer an explanation of how life existed in the first place.
Intelligent Design, from my understanding (I'm a creationist, not an IDist), is that there is a force (assumingly, the author of the universe) that created this bit of life in the first place. Evolutionists don't have a unified front on this matter; some theorize the "lightning zapped primordial ooze, thus forming life" idea, but that, as mentioned before, goes against the observable fact that all life comes from other life.
Almost an intelligent post
:-p Too bad I just fell short, eh? ;-)
Haha, I'm so glad I almost lived up to the intelligence standard!
Cross-specie evolution is also a belief. I can theorize that the author of the universe created life (and from there, either he created all species or let some small bit of life evolve, or...), that is a theory.
My scientific basis? All life in this world comes from other life. That is observable. I theorize that since life must come from other life, there must be some unnatural (or supernatural) force that caused life to exist in the first place. I theorize there is such a force that caused life to exist out of nothing.
Evolution does not leave the origin of the species unanswered, you may be confusing the phrase "origin of the species" with the origin of life.
There we go, my fault. I was meaning to say origin of life, not of species. Evolution offers a solution to the origin of species, not of life.
I disagree, there is a difference: while proteins are made up of amino acids, producing amino acids is still far from creating proteins out of inorganic material.
But evolution doesn't leave the origin of the species unanswered.
But in your previous post you said,
We've found out about evolution, but are still looking into how the first self-reproducing entity could have appeared.
Maybe I misunderstood?
I'm not an IDist. Try to keep the conversation civil. As a deeply religious person myself, cursing other people and calling names does little to contribute to civility or your argument.
There's a big difference between creating a protein that begins life as we know it, and creating amino acids.
It will certainly be big news if someone can create proteins and life from non-life.
It seems to me that speciation is more than a human defined boundary; we can tell one specie from another solely by its DNA. But IANAB (biologist), so I'll leave it at that.
That article you link to is interesting, however, it didn't create self-replicating life. The article offers a possibility to life: ribozymes being the template and catylist for DNA (which synthesize proteins). However, the article admits, proteins require DNA, and DNA doesn't exist without proteins, thus a chicken and egg problem. What's more, the article admits that there hasn't been a single ribozyme found in nature that replicates itself.
The most this article proves is that we can produce amino acids, no actual proteins have been formed!
The article ends with a suggestion that life came from Mars. Brilliant, well that answers all questions, I guess we can go home now.
Creationism and ID also do not offer all the answers either.
It's not about which theory has more answers than the other. We know that evolution, creation, and ID all leave questions unanswered; what I am saying is that if a theory leaves a question unanswered, then we shouldn't limit students to one theory.
My guess is that IDists offer another theory because evolution doesn't have all the answers. Both ID and creation gives a theory that does offer the origin of species, whereas evolution, as you confirmed, does not.
I agree. I'm just saying that evolution doesn't have the all the answers, as some seem to believe. And if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial.
It's more the frustration that some people will do anything to close their ears and eyes to anything that conflicts with their world view. That applies to both creationists and evolutionists, IMO.
What may come as a surprise is that most Creationists and IDists agree that there is speciation and adaptation. It's evident that animals adapt. What is more the crux of conflict is whether species can adapt to become an entirely new and different specie.
What's more, Creationists and IDist don't like the fact that evolution doesn't have any real answer for the source for life. The "lightning zapped a glob of primordial ooze, thus forming the first proteins" idea is not only unnatural (life coming from non-life), but also unproven (why can't we reproduce this phenomena today?)
To say evolutionists have all the answers isn't true, is it? Considering we can't even explain with certainty how life started in the first place, it's naive to think evolution is the answer to everything; evolution may be what's happening to species now and in the past, but that doesn't explain where the species originated. I read recently in National Geographic a scientist who was quoted as saying that evolution is right, but as far as how life got here to evolve in the first place, we'll just "leave that up to priests and poets". Priests and poets!
What we're going to see in this Slashdot thread is a lot of "Creationists are stupid rednecks. Evolution is triumphant once again!". Lots of gloating and lots of mockery will be going on. No doubt, several ACs will reply to this post with personal insults because I disagree with their view of the world. All I can say is, don't assume anyone has all the answers, because no one, evolutionists or creationists, has the answers. And if we don't have all the answers, then analyzation and presentation of conflicting theories is both scientific and beneficial.
Finally, a movie reference from you that borrows from something other than The Godfather. :-)
Illegal copying.
Huh? Most of the stuff I've read from Paul is very objective; despite running a Windows-centric site, he's not afraid to offer criticism where criticism is due (WinHEC Longhorn build, IE7, Longhorn in general), nor is he afraid to offer praise of the competition when that is due (his recent praise of Mac OS 10.3).
Haha...excellent, my thoughts exactly.
No it doesn't, and please stop anthropomorphizing it.
Open-source software advocates want information to be free, as do civil liberty groups and other political organizations that fall near the Slashdot line of thinking.
But to say information wants to be free is like saying my computer monitor wants to be plugged into a high-end video card: it may be better for all parties, but in the end, the monitor is just a monitor. Likewise, information is just information.
You can find the article text here on MirrorDot.