Philip wrote:
The part in bold is not factually correct.
This kind of thing is fed out to the public by the anti intellectual creationist sites
to which previous mention was made. ToE may be right and it may be wrong, but it will never be disproved by anything that is not true or relevant.
1) ToE in no way incorporates to addresses the origin of life.
-this is so because a theory cannot deal with that for which there is no data
-no definition or description of ToE includes the origin of life
-ToE is precisely the same regardless of how life stated, for the simple reason that ToE
deals with changes in life over the aeons. Its no more about the origin of the universe than aerodynamics is.
2) The cell as the basic unit, the starting pint of life in abiogenesis:
-this is nowhere postulated as being the case, other than from creationist sites
-there is no known bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"
-a self-replicating organic molecule is far less complex than a cell. Is it alive? Is it a start on life?
-there is no known flawless definition of life. The choice to define virus, viroids and prions as non living is somewhat arbitrary. Those things exist on the fuzzy boundary between life and non life.
Audie the problem with the toe is als how the data is interpreted . Now granted the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life but everyone and their grandmother knows that most evolutionists believe in their hearts that life came about somehow from non life or a naturalistic process. They have a heavy bias in this area and it also indirectly effects how they approach other evidences in the theory of evolution .
There was first that the problems you raised were simply factually incorrect. Are you acknowledging that?
As for how the data is interpreted, SEDI (same evidence, different interpretation) is a hollow complaint, unless something specific and significant is brought forth. Its not enough just to "interpret". You know?
Yous statement about "most evolutionists" can be demonstrated to be false just by the small number of atheists to be found in the population. The thing about bias is just an assertion, esp the segue from thinking abio is probable going on to colour everything.
You do know that a foremost value in science is objectivity? I know, I know, its an impossible ideal, but people try, much harder than you may realize.
Do you feel Christianity makes the same call? To me it appears the opposite; hold fast the faith, and all. Believe.
Regardless, you have simply made an assertion to the effect that scientists world wide are doing bad work, or (implied" they'd not think ToE was valid.
You can almost see this in doctors Meyers video . Instead of admitting that what he rightly said in the video poses a formidable challenge to evolution , most evolutionists will ignore this data or give an answer that isn't scientific at all.
do you almost see your assertions, and the use of the word "admit", as in "reluctantly confess"? And "formidable"? "Ignore"?
They are not unbiased . Science is supposed to come out of an enquiring mind that is just inter tested in the truth . This isn't the case at all with most evolutionary biologists.
You are again just asserting things you cant possibly know. See who is biased here?
Science, btw, does not do "truth".
Granted there are creationists that are the opposite side if the same coin, that doesn't take away from the responsibility of these pro evolutionary biologists to deal with these problems instead of sweeping them under the rug or firing any biologist or scientist that doesn't agree with them .
Honestly, the bit about rug sweepiong and firing, honestly?
This is how real science is done and this was why my faith in evolution started crumbling slowly and eventually I left it a few years back.
Considering the major errors you made in a few lines, do you think you really have a well informed opinion?
Evolutionists know the astronomical odds for life arising out of chemical interaction and blind chance , and this is why the smarter ones tend to stay away from this side of it .
Id like to discuss facts / data, lets not do how you choose to think others who you do not know are behaving, or comment on their intelligence and character.
But since you brought up the bit about odds, nobody is in a very good position to say what those odds are for life self starting.
However, if you've some chemistry..did you take organic?.. you know that reactions tend to take place at tremendous speed. The number of atoms / molecules / ion in a single drop of water is fantastically huge.
Now, given that complex organic molecules do self assemble under quite a variety of conditions, and given that there are 330,000,000 cubic miles of water on earth, and there were some few millions years to work with, any combination that CAN happen is pretty much going to. Odds are.
I dont see the probability thing working as an asrgument for special creation, unless, of course, one thinks that life has to start with a cell.
Most of my relatives are evolutionists (which is common amongst my fellow catholics ), but when I ask them why they believe in it , their response is "that's what we were taught in school and that's what biologists say" which is no good at all to a non comformist like me, while on the other hand I can explain my position perfectly to them and don't need to speak to authority to make my argument
Distrust "authorities", good. Me too. Do you have any "authority" that you do trust implicitly?
At the same time, if 99 percent or so of scientist around the world are satisfied that ToE is a good theory, that might well mean something. Considering, after all, how delighted any physicist, say, would be if he made the discovery that ToE is fatally flawed. Only the status of making the greatest scientific discovery in how many years, maybe ever?
Most people know little science, couldnt perhaps even tell you how it was determined that the world is round, like an orange. Their failings are not the failings of science, nor disproof of any theory.
As for explaining your position, you've indicated that you think "evolutionists" are biased, linked to a presumed authority (?), and listed some problems for ToE that are factually incorrect.
Now, you may be right, ID may be "it", who knows. Its always good to follow any evidence trail.
What was it may you decide that there is some fatal flaw with ToE?
.