Study: 16 percent of high school science teachers don't believe in science

[Alonzo]

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.

US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.

"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.

'Not Shocking'

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.

However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.

"It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. "We do know there's a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."

Better Training

When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16 percent of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.

Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35 percent fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.

The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves -- and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology -- devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.

This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4895114&page=1

http://www.thesuperest.com/heroes/g12_creationist.jpg

[Charles V]

Only in America. Simply watch where it stands:

http://richarddawkins.net/images/publicAcceptanceEvolution.jpg

[GhostintheMachine]

Interestingly enough, the countries at the top also seem to have the best ratings on education.

[PostmodernProphet]

and yet, the average person is very ignorant about what evolution does and doesn't teach......for example, the people on this board who have argued that evolution provides evidence for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.....

[Alonzo]

and yet, the average person is very ignorant about what evolution does and doesn't teach......for example, the people on this board who have argued that evolution provides evidence for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.....

Evolution says "life appeared, and what happened after that is evolution". Those other things, particularly the origin of life, may be related to evolution, but they're not evolution. If people don't understand that, and I agree many don't, at least they're not saying that someone snapped their fingers and it all magically appeared 6,000 years ago.

[Osborn F. Enready]

How can one teach science, yet not believe what they are teaching?

Talk about the eptiome of hypocrisy.

[Buck Laser]

How can one teach science, yet not believe what they are teaching?

Talk about the eptiome of hypocrisy.
I certainly will not defend teaching creationism or intelligent design as science in the public schools, simply because they don't follow the basic principles of scientific method.

But it is certainly possible to teach something one does not believe in. It's done every day in courses in the social sciences when one tries to teach the theoretical foundations of politics, sociology or psychology. I never encountered a teacher in those areas who refused to present an honest survey of the ideas, or who refused to state his own preferences, yet separate them from an objective presentation.

That kind of presentation is a bit more difficult in the physical sciences, where events can be analyzed an understood through empirical evidence. There is no "controversy" about evolution--it just is, and to talk about any other explanation of the progression of life forms requires such convoluted explanations that they simply dissolve into foolishness.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Good points Buck, I find hard to argue with. You also remind me that philosophy teachers also teach a wide range of differing philosophy that most likely don't agree with their own.

I am skeptical of such "science" teachers however, especially after seeing Pat Robertsons school built on the concept of placing people in government to dictate policy along religious lines......

[preservanation]

I certainly will not defend teaching creationism or intelligent design as science in the public schools, simply because they don't follow the basic principles of scientific method.By that standard, man made global warming as well as Darwinism and a whole host of other theories shouldn't be taught either.
How can some argue not to discuss "theories"?
That's nonsense.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I have no problem with them teaching religion as religion, and science as science, but they are not interchangeable.

[PostmodernProphet]

Evolution says "life appeared, and what happened after that is evolution". Those other things, particularly the origin of life, may be related to evolution, but they're not evolution. If people don't understand that, and I agree many don't, at least they're not saying that someone snapped their fingers and it all magically appeared 6,000 years ago.

lol.....no, they are saying nobody snapped their fingers and it all magically appeared......

[Buck Laser]

By that standard, man made global warming as well as Darwinism and a whole host of other theories shouldn't be taught either.
How can some argue not to discuss "theories"?
That's nonsense.
Oh, come ON, preserv! You gotta know better than that. After all, gravity is just a theory, too. Or maybe you don't realize that "theory" in scientific studies doesn't equate to speculation? Shit, even in music, one has to understand some music theory in order to be able to analyze it.

I read your comment as just one more of your attempts to stir up the shit so people won't stop and think. After all, that seems to be the "theory" you and your cohorts have followed during this election year. The funny thing is that only people who have the cerebral propensities of a lobotomized angleworm would find your "theory" cogent.

[Charles V]

lol.....no, they are saying nobody snapped their fingers and it all magically appeared......

Excuse me?

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution.

Spontaneous Generation =/= Abiogenesis.

[Alonzo]

lol.....no, they are saying nobody snapped their fingers and it all magically appeared......

My mistake, someone said "let there be" and there was. That's much more plausible than snapping fingers.

[bobbylien]

Wow, that survey says that 60% of Americans deny evolution? I'd like to see the actual poll question because I can't honestly believe that 60% of Americans would deny the existence of evolution in some form but maybe I'm just being naive.

Who here would be foolish enough to outright deny the existence of evolution in any form? Seriously.

[GhostintheMachine]

Evolution is a fact: species have changed over time. That can't be denied using any sort of empirical/logical argument.

How evolution took place is open to some debate, but I'm afraid intelligent design does not work within the constraints of scientific discussion. It is open to discussion within the realm of philosophy.

Science is based on empiricism, and as a science teacher I would have to claim that you are required to adhere to the tenets of empiricism.

[PostmodernProphet]

Excuse me?

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution.

Spontaneous Generation =/= Abiogenesis.

I will agree with you on the first, though not on the second....I see no distinguishable difference.....

[PostmodernProphet]

My mistake, someone said "let there be" and there was. That's much more plausible than snapping fingers.

how does that change the fact that seculars say nobody snapped their fingers or said "Let there be" and life magically appeared......

[PostmodernProphet]

How evolution took place is open to some debate, but I'm afraid intelligent design does not work within the constraints of scientific discussion.

/shrugs...it works just as well as abiogenesis does......

[Alonzo]

how does that change the fact that seculars say nobody snapped their fingers or said "Let there be" and life magically appeared......

Doesn't, it just says one side is based on evidence and one is based on magic.

[PostmodernProphet]

Doesn't, it just says one side is based on evidence and one is based on magic.

abiogenesis isn't based on evidence.....it's as much "magic" as an intelligent designer creating......

[GhostintheMachine]

/shrugs...it works just as well as abiogenesis does......

I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, I'm talking about the evolution of species, which people also apply the theory of intelligent design to

[PostmodernProphet]

I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, I'm talking about the evolution of species, which people also apply the theory of intelligent design tointelligent design is an alternative theory of origin.....evolution is not a theory of origin.....

[tecoyah]

abiogenesis isn't based on evidence.....it's as much "magic" as an intelligent designer creating......

Actually, abiogenesis is theory based on observation. It has been proven in multiple experiments that energy added to Chemical mixtures indeed create the building blocks of RNA (tholins)...the theory merely postulates that given enough time to interact, these compounds could handily form biological masses.
The theory may be incorrect, we simply do not know (thus a theory)...but it is based on sound physical evidence.

[Alonzo]

abiogenesis isn't based on evidence.....it's as much "magic" as an intelligent designer creating......

The origins of life itself has many competing models that share basic similarities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Current_models

It's not "magic" and parts have been proven, such as amino acids and peptides can be formed from organic molecules.

[Alonzo]

intelligent design is an alternative theory of origin.....evolution is not a theory of origin.....

No, intelligent design is not a theory as, to be a theory, it must have scientific evidence and be well substantiated. It is not a hypothesis either, as to be a hypothesis it must be scientifically testable.

Evolution is no more a theory of origin than gravity is a theory of evolution. They deal with different issues, even if both must occur (origin and gravity) for the other (evolution) to occur.

[Easy90]

Somebody hand me a pickle out of that barrel. How bout this weather? Yawn!

[GhostintheMachine]

intelligent design is an alternative theory of origin.....evolution is not a theory of origin.....

Yes, I know that, like I said I am referring to those applying intelligent design as an alternative to natural selection:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[16] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[17] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[18]

-wikipedia

[preservanation]

Somebody hand me a pickle out of that barrel. How bout this weather? Yawn!Trade you a pork hock...

[Charles V]

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution.

Spontaneous Generation =/= Abiogenesis.
I will agree with you on the first, though not on the second....I see no distinguishable difference.....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

Spontaneous generation would resemble the left side of the image - that is, lifeforms appear magically. Abiogenesis, actually, refers to the right side of it - far from spontaneous, far from accidental, far from magical.

[PostmodernProphet]

but it is based on sound physical evidencedude, the only evidence is that chemicals exist......there isn't any evidence, sound or otherwise, to support the thought they could spontaneously erupt into "life"......

No, intelligent design is not a theory as, to be a theory, it must have scientific evidence and be well substantiated. It is not a hypothesis either, as to be a hypothesis it must be scientifically testable. making it the precise equivalent of abiogenesis.....
Yes, I know that, like I said I am referring to those applying intelligent design as an alternative to natural selectionI have never seen that done.....

Spontaneous generation would resemble the left side of the image - that is, lifeforms appear magically. Abiogenesis, actually, refers to the right side of it - far from spontaneous, far from accidental, far from magical.the key is the step which goes from "dead thing" to "live thing"......spontaneous under the secular view, created under the intelligent design view........

[Alonzo]

making it the precise equivalent of abiogenesis.....

Not true, as it is testable. We already can create the building blocks of life, amino acids, in labs as well as peptides. I'm sure there are other ways I can't comprehend, as they can test all sorts of things about the universe that I struggle to understand even when reading things in magazines such as "Discover", but at the very least building basic life in laboratories is likely possible, given that we can create amino acids and peptides. In fact researchers think they may only be years away from creating life in labs:

WASHINGTON - Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they’re getting closer.

Experts expect an announcement within three to 10 years from someone in the now little-known field of “wet artificial life.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

There is evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and it's the best available explanation as to how life occurred, as it's the only one that has any evidence whatsoever.

On the other hand, the statement "God created life" is not testable, either by observing fossils or other similar prehistorical evidence, or by recreating it.

[Charles V]

the key is the step which goes from "dead thing" to "live thing"......spontaneous under the secular view, created under the intelligent design view........

Your comment seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of abiogenesis, and the basic definition of ''life''. There is no universal definition of what constitutes ''life'' - in fact, there is a gray area of organisms which have some properties of living organisms, and some properties of ''dead'' ones. A virus is a prominent example of this, as they do not contain the basic units of organization that most living forms have: cells.

Now, keep in mind that abiogenesis is a complex science, and that there are various explanations as to how abiogenesis may have occured, but, in simple terms, the abiogenesis theory stipulates that the concentration of RNA nucleotides, and their subsequent polymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerization), would have created RNA, a structure similar to DNA, which may self-replicate. At that point, once an organism begins to self-replicate, it may be said that ''life'' began. And keep in mind, by nature, self-replicating structures tend to accumulate, leading to the formation of larger structures and organisms. Granted, these self-replicating organisms do not possess most of the properties that would grant them the definition of ''life'', but once these organisms are formed, put evolution in place, and voilà. The accumulation of gradual changes in those organisms through natural selection through a very long period of time explains the Earth's species diversity.

There is nothing ''spontaneous'' about abiogenesis. Actually, the word ''spontaneous'' suggests that the process it describes would be instantaneous. Theories describing abiogenesis are far from instant.

However, you seem to justify belief in intelligent design by poking holes into abiogenesis. Let's, for a moment, ignore everything I posted above. Abiogenesis describes, in biochemical terms, how life could have formed on Earth. Intelligent design, on the other hand, explains absolutely nothing, and simply brings the assumption of a superpowerful external and unperceivable entity to justify its lack of explanation for anything. What would you rather pick?

[PostmodernProphet]

Not true, as it is testable. We already can create the building blocks of life, amino acids, in labs as well as peptides. I'm sure there are other ways I can't comprehend, as they can test all sorts of things about the universe that I struggle to understand even when reading things in magazines such as "Discover", but at the very least building basic life in laboratories is likely possible, given that we can create amino acids and peptides. In fact researchers think they may only be years away from creating life in labs:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

There is evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and it's the best available explanation as to how life occurred, as it's the only one that has any evidence whatsoever.

On the other hand, the statement "God created life" is not testable, either by observing fossils or other similar prehistorical evidence, or by recreating it.

no, Zo...it isn't testable....those "other ways I can't comprehend" do not in actuality exist.....so your conclusion is based on an incorrect assumption.....so at best you can conclude that chemicals exist, which when you stop to think about it is a fuckingly brilliant conclusion.....the meat of abiogenesis, that those chemicals can somehow join themselves together and become life is NOT testable, has no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is no different than the assertion that God created life....and quite frankly I am getting tired of people claiming it is any different when they can't provide a drop of fucking evidence that it is.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Your comment seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of abiogenesisthe only thing I lack regarding abiogenesis is the religious fervor of a believer.....

it is not a "complex science"....it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since it is incapable of experimentation......

and a virus does not "have" a cell....a virus is an inert complex chemical molecule that attaches itself to a living cell and alters it, causing it to create an identical inert complex chemical molecule.....to borrow a concept from Osborn....it acts parasitically......

At that point, once an organism begins to self-replicatea/k/a the moment of spontaneity....

Granted, these self-replicating organisms do not possess most of the properties that would grant them the definition of ''life''

actually, I would disagree.....if it were a self-replicating organism, instead of merely a self-replicating chemical compound you would have life.....however, it has never occurred in an experimental situation.....

Actually, the word ''spontaneous'' suggests that the process it describes would be instantaneous
no, the key concept would be self-actuated.....

Let's, for a moment, ignore everything I posted above. Abiogenesis describes, in biochemical terms, how life could have formed on Earth. Intelligent design, on the other hand, explains absolutely nothing, and simply brings the assumption of a superpowerful external and unperceivable entity to justify its lack of explanation for anything. What would you rather pick?

given a choice between self-activated formation by a complex chemical incapable of action and intelligent design by an external force capable of action and I will opt for intelligent design.......

[Alonzo]

no, Zo...it isn't testable....those "other ways I can't comprehend" do not in actuality exist.....so your conclusion is based on an incorrect assumption.....so at best you can conclude that chemicals exist, which when you stop to think about it is a fuckingly brilliant conclusion.....the meat of abiogenesis, that those chemicals can somehow join themselves together and become life is NOT testable, has no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is no different than the assertion that God created life....and quite frankly I am getting tired of people claiming it is any different when they can't provide a drop of fucking evidence that it is.......

I just pointed out that the building blocks of life can be created, and that advancements in research have resulted in experts saying we should be able to create life, in a laboratory, within 10 years. But that's not evidence that abiogenesis is possible?

Oh that's right, the only real evidence comes from here:

http://truereligiondebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bible3.gif

All that other stuff is just science, and who needs that?

[PostmodernProphet]

I just pointed out that the building blocks of life can be created, and that advancements in research have resulted in experts saying we should be able to create life, in a laboratory, within 10 years. But that's not evidence that abiogenesis is possible?

no, Zo...that isn't evidence.....it's the statement that chemicals exist and the true believers have a fervent faith in their abilities.....but of course, you would consider that to be something stronger than mere scriptural faith, wouldn't you......

[Alonzo]

no, Zo...that isn't evidence.....it's the statement that chemicals exist and the true believers have a fervent faith in their abilities.....but of course, you would consider that to be something stronger than mere scriptural faith, wouldn't you......

Post, are you denying that amino acids and peptides, both essential to life and would be the first steps towards making life, can be created in laboratories?

[PostmodernProphet]

Post, are you denying that amino acids and peptides, both essential to life and would be the first steps towards making life, can be created in laboratories?

uh, no Zo.....did you know that if you mix salt and water in a laboratory, you can get saltwater?......that doesn't mean you are close to creating an ocean......

[Alonzo]

uh, no Zo.....did you know that if you mix salt and water in a laboratory, you can get saltwater?......that doesn't mean you are close to creating an ocean......

Creating amino acids and polypeptides doesn't occur simply by dumping one thing onto another.

[PostmodernProphet]

Creating amino acids and polypeptides doesn't occur simply by dumping one thing onto another.

and life doesn't occur simply from dumping amino acids and polypeptides together......

[Charles V]

the only thing I lack regarding abiogenesis is the religious fervor of a believer.....

A believer in abiogenesis you mean? Does this mean to say that a religious person is suggesting that religious fervor is a bad thing? ;)

it is not a "complex science"....it isn't even a valid hypothesis, since it is incapable of experimentation......

Presumably intelligent design can be also demonstrated through experimentation?

You simply must keep in mind that most of what relates to abiogenesis is largely uncertain. Research in the field deals with the feasibility of certain events that might have created the first self-replicating chemical compounds, and thus begun life.

Now, you say it cannot be investigated through experimentation. That is clearly untrue. Much experimental research has been placed on the specific steps that might have led to abiogenesis: the formation of RNA through the concentration of RNA nucleotides and its subsequent polymerization (as I described before), the creation of amino acids in hydrothermal vents from simple chemicals, etc.

actually, I would disagree.....if it were a self-replicating organism, instead of merely a self-replicating chemical compound you would have life.....however, it has never occurred in an experimental situation.....

How do you separate self-replicating chemical compounds from self-replicating organisms? By the level of complexity between each other? DNA is essentially a self-replicating series of chemical compounds, after all. If self-replicating chemical compounds form, one does not need to be Nostradamus to see how such compounds could have progressively evolved into the diversity of species we have today.

given a choice between self-activated formation by a complex chemical incapable of action and intelligent design by an external force capable of action and I will opt for intelligent design.......

It's a little late at night, so permit me then to conclude this post prematurely by only responding to this part of your post.

Do you not realize the absolute absurdity of what you just posted? You question the current theories (lots of them) of how abiogenesis may have occured, and therefore (emphasis very important) you conclude that it must have been a superpowerful magical entity who has consciously created it all. If this conclusion were to be considered valid, it would be justifying the beliefs of all ancient civilizations, where their ignorance of how thunder and lighting occured led them to believe that it was Thor. Saying ''God did it'' essentially explains nothing, and leaves us content with not understanding the world that surrounds us.

[Alonzo]

and life doesn't occur simply from dumping amino acids and polypeptides together......

No, it's one of the steps. It's evidence, not proof, evidence. My initial argument was that it's evidence.

[Waffletush]

My mistake, someone said "let there be" and there was. That's much more plausible than snapping fingers.

And yet someone said that, snapped their fingers, and Jimmy Hoffa disappeared. He was rumored to have lived once, but now only resides in pictures, books and what people say they saw of him. Yet their comments are taken as gospel.

[PostmodernProphet]

one does not need to be Nostradamus to see how such compounds could have progressively evolved into the diversity of species we have todayoh heavens no....in fact, it helps a great deal if one is far less intelligent than Nostradamus........how does one "evolve" from an inert chemical compound into something that is alive?........

Presumably intelligent design can be also demonstrated through experimentation?
ummm....no, that is why I said abiogenesis was the equivalent of intelligent design.....neither are scientific hypothesis, both are statements of faith......

[PostmodernProphet]

No, it's one of the steps. It's evidence, not proof, evidence. My initial argument was that it's evidence.

but it isn't evidence of abiogenesis....it's evidence that there are chemicals......congratulations....you have proved chemicals......

[tecoyah]

dude, the only evidence is that chemicals exist......there isn't any evidence, sound or otherwise, to support the thought they could spontaneously erupt into "life"......


Dude.....You are incorrect:

Abiotic Production of Organic Molecules
The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.

Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.The Beginnings of Life on Earth

Others have made similar experiments. A group at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego, exposed sulfur-bearing molecules like those thought to have been present before the Earth formed to low levels of light. The presence of the light was enough to generate organic compounds - molecules containing carbon, which form the chemical basis of life as we know it. Meteorite Reveals Life Not Difficult to Make

The new compounds had a distinct isotopic (atomic makeup) signature, not normally found on Earth. In fact, the peculiar part is that these isotopes have only been found one other time, in compounds removed from the Murchison meteorite.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm


........as seems par for the course.............

[PostmodernProphet]

Dude.....You are incorrect:

lol....dude, the Miller experiment proved that the basic building blocks of organic life exist (though even Miller acknowledges that the experiment was an error, since it didn't duplicate the conditions of a pre-life earth as they thought it did in the 50s).....but that is what we have been talking about all through this thread.....you have proved chemicals existed....whoopteefrickindoo......abiogenesis claims that we moved FROM a state where the chemicals existed TO a state where life existed......proof that the "FROM" existed does nothing to prove the transition......you really need to do some studying on this issue if you are still relying on the Miller experiment.......

[Charles V]

ummm....no, that is why I said abiogenesis was the equivalent of intelligent design.....neither are scientific hypothesis, both are statements of faith......

Oh no my friend.

Abiogenesis basis itself on a very simple assumption: life (i.e. self-replicating chemical compounds) must've first formed on Earth from the materials and energy present at the time. The exact process of how this happened is still open to scientific research and discussion, of course.

Intelligent design, however, basis itself on the following assumption: a magical all-powerful superbeing, whom we have never seen, and lives somewhere where we cannot see him, somehow made stuff appear. It does not explain the how, but brings into the hypothesis' predicates the existence of a magical entity whose existence has no observable evidence.

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh no my friend.

Abiogenesis basis itself on a very simple assumption: life (i.e. self-replicating chemical compounds) must've first formed on Earth from the materials and energy present at the time. The exact process of how this happened is still open to scientific research and discussion, of course.

Intelligent design, however, basis itself on the following assumption: a magical all-powerful superbeing, whom we have never seen, and lives somewhere where we cannot see him, somehow made stuff appear. It does not explain the how, but brings into the hypothesis' predicates the existence of a magical entity whose existence has no observable evidence.

lol, and you don't see the inherent error in your argument?.....your "very simple assumption" is an unprovable faith statement.......

[Charles V]

lol, and you don't see the inherent error in your argument?.....your "very simple assumption" is an unprovable faith statement.......

I fail to see your logic.

At some point after the formation of the Earth and before the first recorded presence of atmospheric oxygen, life must have formed. It could only have formed from existing matter and energy on Earth, or from matter or energy brought to Earth by impacting meteorites.

Abiogenesis research tries to explain how this happened. But there is no logical doubt that it happened.

----

Also, I find it interesting how you don't justify your actual beliefs, but try to downgrade scientific beliefs by trying to ''level'' them with yours.

[PostmodernProphet]

It could only have formed from existing matter and energy on Earth, or from matter or energy brought to Earth by impacting meteorites

since this can never be proved scientifically, it is a faith assumption.......

[Charles V]

since this can never be proved scientifically, it is a faith assumption.......

What do you mean? Is it not reasonable to assume that life must have been first formed from matter and energy on Earth?

If not, what else do you suggest?

[Easy90]

Charles, you might as well be arguing with a fireplug. He totally believes in magic, and thinks anyone who believes in the scientific process...ALSO believes in magic. (So his "logic" goes) If you get into his case with evidence that what he believes in is primitave superstition, he will tell you he has a DEGREE in magic (theology) ...and as such..you don't know anything...AND....his "magic" is as valid as "science." No amount of logical discourse on your part will divert him from his loop. It's a waste of time...and it repeats every time someone new comes along and starts a new thread about the separation of religion from science...

[Elrathin]

If not, what else do you suggest?

He will suggest the invisible sky god I'm sure.

[Easy90]

PROVE the Invisible Sky God doesn't exist! (Borrowing a page from PMP's logic manual.)

[PostmodernProphet]

you boys are just upset that I don't buy into your own brand of magick......

[PostmodernProphet]

What do you mean? Is it not reasonable to assume that life must have been first formed from matter and energy on Earth?



what body of science are you familiar with that proceeds upon assumptions....you may assume all you like so long as you admit it is a faith choice instead of science......

[tecoyah]

since this can never be proved scientifically, it is a faith assumption.......


OK...lemme get this straight.

You debunk spontanious biology because it cannot be proven.

You believe in God even though it cannot be proven.

Spontanious Biology is based on observation, chemistry, and current biology...as well as evolutionary science to an extent.

God is based on.....books.

Books are man made constructs which obviously arrived long after biology created the brain.








Is there any logical reason for me to prefer your opinion over the other?

[PostmodernProphet]

Spontanious Biology is based on observation, chemistry, and current biology...as well as evolutionary science to an extent.

false claim....abiogenesis has never been observed....why is it so difficult for you people to admit that it is simply something you believe to be true?....

You debunk spontanious biology because it cannot be proven.

misstatement.....I have debunked your claim that it HAS been proven.....I have made no effort at all to attack spontaneous biology.....your faith assumptions are safe around me......

[tecoyah]

false claim....abiogenesis has never been observed....why is it so difficult for you people to admit that it is simply something you believe to be true?....



misstatement.....I have debunked your claim that it HAS been proven.....I have made no effort at all to attack spontaneous biology.....your faith assumptions are safe around me......

I must assume you simply do not understand the language, or are being a moron. I have stated the theory is based on observation, based in verified science, and used in the field.....no where have I stated it is a truth, as I do not accept it as such.
This is where we differ in the extreme....I know full well I am not privy to the truth....you seem to think you are.


I do "believe" it has more merit than a fairy godfather....but this does not mean I consider it truth. There are no truths in science....even laws are just verified theory, and will likely change in the future.

[Charles V]

what body of science are you familiar with that proceeds upon assumptions....you may assume all you like so long as you admit it is a faith choice instead of science......

I've always wanted to use this cartoon...

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6245/01assumptionsap9.png

There are some basic assumptions in everything we do. Even the big bang theory, the farthest explanation we've discovered in terms of time with regards to the universe, bases itself on a couple of basic assumptions that, while not completely proven, are true as far as our current knowledge reaches.

Now, stop with your absurd line of argumentation and please accept, or attempt to refute, the fact that life must have formed at some point in time between the formation of Earth and the appearance of atmospheric oxygen through the matter and energy present on Earth at that time. The how is such process is currently uncertain, but for the sanity of all...

Your current line of argumentation is no different that one who claims that believing in the theory of gravity is based on faith, as those who believe are therefore assuming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not pushing objects to the ground using his invisible Noodly Appendage.

[PostmodernProphet]

I must assume you simply do not understand the language, or are being a moron. I have stated the theory is based on observation, based in verified science, and used in the field....

again, you can assume all you like....you have never been right before, now is no change.....you have stated the theory is based on observation....in that you are wrong.....all that has been observed is the existence of organic chemicals.....not abiogenesis....one could equally claim that the building of the pyramids has been observed, because one has seen stone.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Now, stop with your absurd line of argumentation and please accept, or attempt to refute, the fact that life must have formed at some point in time between the formation of Earth and the appearance of atmospheric oxygen through the matter and energy present on Earth at that time. The how is such process is currently uncertain, but for the sanity of all...



I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have absolutely no need to abandon my beliefs and clutch yours simply because you think my beliefs are absurd.....I will grant you that it is logical that life was created at some point in time between the creation of the universe and the present, since there would have been no place for it to keep it's beer cold if it had been created earlier and we would have noticed by now if it hadn't been created yet......however, there is no necessity that it was formed out of then existing matter and energy, since a being capable of creating matter and energy in the first place could certainly create as much as it needed at any point in time.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Your current line of argumentation is no different that one who claims that believing in the theory of gravity is based on faith

I am sorry that you are unable to come to grips with the failings of abiogenesis ....however, if you try to remind yourself that science requires that hypothesis be capable of experimental testing, it may begin to sink in that it cannot be science.....

[Charles V]

however, there is no necessity that it was formed out of then existing matter and energy, since a being capable of creating matter and energy in the first place could certainly create as much as it needed at any point in time.....

Aha! Law of conservation of energy my friend. Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed. It just is. You have acknowledged that life must have formed after the formation of the Earth, and therefore life must have formed in some way from existing matter and energy.

I am sorry that you are unable to come to grips with the failings of abiogenesis ....however, if you try to remind yourself that science requires that hypothesis be capable of experimental testing, it may begin to sink in that it cannot be science.....

What failings? Abiogenesis simply states that, at some point in the history of the Earth, life must've formed from existing chemicals. That is logical.

Now, as I have repeatedly mentioned, experimental research in abiogenesis relates to how this might've occured. That is especially what classifies this as science, by definition: exploring the areas of uncertainty in the body of human knowledge. And this is exactly what is being done.

[I Like Beer]

given a choice between self-activated formation by a complex chemical incapable of action and intelligent design by an external force capable of action and I will opt for intelligent design.......

Then who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?

[I Like Beer]

no, Zo...that isn't evidence.....it's the statement that chemicals exist and the true believers have a fervent faith in their abilities.....but of course, you would consider that to be something stronger than mere scriptural faith, wouldn't you......

This is from Stanley Miller himself (of the famous Miller Urey experiment).

Can you clarify one thing? Have all of the amino acids been synthesized in pre-biotic experiments, along with all the necessary components for making life?

Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids. If you count asparagine and glutamine you get thirteen basic amino acids. We don't know how many amino acids there were to start with. Asparagine and glutamine, for example, do not look prebiotic because they hydrolyze. The purines and pyrimidines can alos be made, as can all of the sugars, although they are unstable.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php

So, just by adding electricity to the reducing atmosphere that was most likely present 4 billion years ago, you get 11-13 amino acids, sugars, purines, and pyrimidines.

PMP - that's EVIDENCE of what could have been available at the beginning of life on the planet. We can recreate those conditions and we get all these biological molecules.

Now, I'm not claiming that Miller's experiment PROVES abiogenesis, but it's evidence that it's possible. It certainly doesn't thwart a natural explanation for the origin of life.

But, for a 'creator' we have no evidence to test. No questions to ask, only answers spoon fed to us.

I will speak for myself and say, I'm very happy to look at any evidence you'd like to give me about intelligent design.

[I Like Beer]

.the meat of abiogenesis, that those chemicals can somehow join themselves together and become life is NOT testable, has no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is no different than the assertion that God created life.

Of course it's testable. Even if that hasn't happened yet, it can and most certainly will be tested. Once the mechanisms are worked out, we will cook up a nice pot of primordial soup in a lab.

Until then, no one here (from what I can see) is stating that 'this is how life started'. Well, except you. But, you admit that and have no problem with it, right?

What I don't understand is why you get so angry about it. As Ben Stein said in his film, Expelled: “In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism.” -Ben Stein

[PostmodernProphet]

Aha! Law of conservation of energy my friend. Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed. It just is. the law of conservation of energy provides that the physical universe is incapable of producing new matter or energy.....this would not apply to a creating entity, which obviously COULD create matter and energy.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Abiogenesis simply states that, at some point in the history of the Earth, life must've formed from existing chemicals. That is logical.

that is your error......describing a faith choice as the result of logic.....if you would simply admit that it is your belief the argument would be over.....you cannot say you can rationally select one alternative against another unless there is evidence to support your premises......

in essence what you are stating as your "logic" is that before we didn't have life, now we do, and the only way that could have happened is by nature.......that isn't evidence, that is a belief that there could be no causes other than natural causes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Then who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?

why does he need a designer.....he always existed....your assumption that everything must have a beginning is just another faith choice.....

[PostmodernProphet]

This is from Stanley Miller himself (of the famous Miller Urey experiment).



http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php

So, just by adding electricity to the reducing atmosphere that was most likely present 4 billion years ago, you get 11-13 amino acids, sugars, purines, and pyrimidines.

PMP - that's EVIDENCE of what could have been available at the beginning of life on the planet. We can recreate those conditions and we get all these biological molecules.

Now, I'm not claiming that Miller's experiment PROVES abiogenesis, but it's evidence that it's possible. It certainly doesn't thwart a natural explanation for the origin of life.

But, for a 'creator' we have no evidence to test. No questions to ask, only answers spoon fed to us.

I will speak for myself and say, I'm very happy to look at any evidence you'd like to give me about intelligent design.

first of all, the Miller-Urey experiment was based upon certain assumptions about what a pre-biotic earth was like......and those assumptions were formed upon what science knew about the earth in the 50s......

as knowledge expanded scientists realized that the environment created in the experiment were not accurate....those that took this position included Carl Sagan and Miller, himself....

Miller tried to recreate his experiment in the 80s using the revised environment and was not able to come up with the same results.....

some of the factors which complicated the experiment included the necessity to shield the experiment from UV rays and the need to immediately isolate the produced amino acids, etc from the toxic chemicals which the experiment also produced....two steps which obviously would not be present in nature....

but the most significant problem with what you posted is this.....the Miller Urey experiment does NOT provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, it merely provides evidence (weak evidence) that organic chemical compounds can be self replicating.....

abiogenesis needs far more than self replicating organic compounds.....it requires DNA, or at the very least RNA.....it is not logical to say that because Miller showed that chemicals are present, it also showed that DNA/RNA could spontaneously arise and cause those chemicals to bond together in a living cell.....

nor has there been any other experiment that demonstrates this could happen.....

as I said before, it's like saying you can prove the pyramids built themselves, because you have evidence that there was stone.....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

I won't attempt to provide evidence of intelligent design....I acknowledge that it is a faith choice.....I just wish that others were as honest about their beliefs.....

[PostmodernProphet]

What I don't understand is why you get so angry about it. As Ben Stein said in his film, Expelled: “In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism.” -Ben Stein

ROFL.....and you are saying this to the critic?.......you do realize what this thread is about, right?.....an attack on teachers who committed the "sin" of believing there might be truth in intelligent design and thus committed a sacrilege against "science".......

[Charles V]

why does he need a designer.....he always existed....your assumption that everything must have a beginning is just another faith choice.....

My friend, do you not see the problem in your argumentation?

Your conclusion that God must exist comes from the assumption that the Universe must have had a creator. But it is no use to support the existence of an all powerful entity through that principle, and then say that such principle does not apply to such entity. That is a contradiction.

an attack on teachers who committed the "sin" of believing there might be truth in intelligent design and thus committed a sacrilege against "science".......

If abiogenesis is still a field of research clouded in uncertainty, evolution is a fact. Saying that it is not is bad enough, teaching it in the public school is plain ridiculous.

[Professor]

Only in America. Simply watch where it stands:

http://richarddawkins.net/images/publicAcceptanceEvolution.jpg

Look at the company the US keeps. A lot of old communist countries, where as a matter of course information was repressed and people were uneducated because of it.

This whole issue is disgusting. The point of education is to educate. The teacher's job is to each the material, all of it. Then let the students think critically and decide what they think.

Whether they chose creationism or evolution, either way is fine as long as they came to their conclusion with all the facts in hand and through logical thought.

[PostmodernProphet]

Your conclusion that God must exist comes from the assumption that the Universe must have had a creator. But it is no use to support the existence of an all powerful entity through that principle, and then say that such principle does not apply to such entity. That is a contradiction.

not at all.....I believe the universe has a creator because I see evidence that speaks both of an origin and of intent rather than randomness in it's formation.....I have nothing to observe regarding a creator that tells me either that it must have had an origin or a specific design.....

[Charles V]

not at all.....I believe the universe has a creator because I see evidence that speaks both of an origin and of intent rather than randomness in it's formation.....

What part of it is random? Most of it is already well understood by science, the rest will be discovered with time.

I have nothing to observe regarding a creator that tells me either that it must have had an origin or a specific design.....

Possibly because no one has seen him.

[PostmodernProphet]

evolution is a fact. Saying that it is not is bad enough, teaching it in the public school is plain ridiculous.

and who has done that?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

What part of it is random? Most of it is already well understood by science, the rest will be discovered with time.??....under the secular view, all of it.....you know, given a million opportunities, life was inevitable?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Possibly because no one has seen him.

Bingo....thus I can hardly be blamed for inconsistency because I have not drawn similar conclusions from my observations of him......

[bobbylien]

Cut the religious debate, its an absolute waste of time. How can you argue with an opinion based on 100% faith and no evidence at all? Why should anyone else care what he believes? Let him have his delusions.

[tecoyah]

Cut the religious debate, its an absolute waste of time. How can you argue with an opinion based on 100% faith and no evidence at all? Why should anyone else care what he believes? Let him have his delusions.


I agree, but you gotta admit its fully entertaining to watch this mentality stumble. The psycho-analyst in us all is fascinated by that which defies logical thought.

And....it's wicked fun to watch the kittys play with yarn.

[PostmodernProphet]

Cut the religious debate, its an absolute waste of time. How can you argue with an opinion based on 100% faith and no evidence at all? Why should anyone else care what he believes? Let him have his delusions.

hey dude....if you don't like the thread you are perfectly welcome to visit the others......don't be an ass on this one....

[PostmodernProphet]

And....it's wicked fun to watch the kittys play with yarn.

which pretty much equals the effort you have put into supporting your arguments....hanging on to the end of a string......

[Charles V]

and who has done that?.....

Teach creationism in public schools? Oh, I don't know... recall the Kansas State Board of Education?

??....under the secular view, all of it.....you know, given a million opportunities, life was inevitable?.......

You initially said the universe. Now life? Be specific.

Now, about life, we do not know how much life (note: not necessarily intelligent life) exists elsewhere. We have already discovered a few planets falling within the habitable zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone) where life as we know it could have formed.

But no, there is nothing random about abiogenesis. Certain chemicals by definition behave in certain ways under certain conditions, and when these conditions are met, life forms. What conditions you ask? If I knew, I would be in Sweden receiving my Noble in Chemistry.

Bingo....thus I can hardly be blamed for inconsistency because I have not drawn similar conclusions from my observations of him......

Wait, you believe in God because of the assumption that everything must require a creator, but that assumption does not apply to God because God may be absolutely anything that our imagination can possibly conceive, or even beyond that? No point in bringing belief in such an abstract and indefinite thing into the scientific arena then.

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote:
and who has done that?.....
Teach creationism in public schools? Oh, I don't know... recall the Kansas State Board of Education?

nice try at a dodge....no, who has done what you originally asked about....

You initially said the universe. Now life? Be specific.

I have heard the argument re: both.....you can respond to either or both....

[PostmodernProphet]

Certain chemicals by definition behave in certain ways under certain conditionsthere is no scientific evidence that any chemical behaves by springing into "life"......

Wait, you believe in God because of the assumption that everything must require a creator, but that assumption does not apply to God because God may be absolutely anything that our imagination can possibly conceive, or even beyond that? No point in bringing belief in such an abstract and indefinite thing into the scientific arena then.

I think the debate would go smoother if you responded to the things I post instead of the things you wish I had posted.....

[Buck Laser]

By that standard, man made global warming as well as Darwinism and a whole host of other theories shouldn't be taught either.
How can some argue not to discuss "theories"?
That's nonsense.
It isn't nonsense, preserv. You need to understand what a theory is. In the scientific method, a theory is "a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is "fact". (Wikipedia) Creationism or intelligent design simply doesn't meet those criteria.

Climate change isn't a theory: it's the result of a series of observations. Clearly a vocal minority are refusing to accept the results of the observations, almost entirely for political reasons. If you try to conflate evolution and global warming, you're just trying to spread the same kind of disinformation that PMP is. I don't think either of you has any real interest in furthering real debate: in fact, both of you acknowledge your intent to spread confusion in your descriptive lines. I consider that dishonest and unworthy of a moderator.

[Charles V]

there is no scientific evidence that any chemical behaves by springing into "life"......

Well, for instance, DNA is one of the few self-replicating chemicals that we know of. The formation of the first self-replicating chemical is with what abiogenesis is concerned. And we do know that RNA nucleotides, when in high concentration, align themselves naturally ''into place'', and we also know that RNA may naturally self-replicate without the action of enzymes.

Give it time.

I have heard the argument re: both.....you can respond to either or both....

I did. Either read the part following the part you quoted (life), or respond to the following (universe):

''Wait, you believe in God because of the assumption that everything must require a creator, but that assumption does not apply to God because God may be absolutely anything that our imagination can possibly conceive, or even beyond that? No point in bringing belief in such an abstract and indefinite thing into the scientific arena then.''

[PostmodernProphet]

I did. Either read the part following the part you quoted (life), or respond to the following (universe):

''Wait, you believe in God because of the assumption that everything must require a creator, but that assumption does not apply to God because God may be absolutely anything that our imagination can possibly conceive, or even beyond that? No point in bringing belief in such an abstract and indefinite thing into the scientific arena then.''

I did respond to it....it is not an accurate statement of what I believe.....for one thing, God is not a "thing" so even if I argued that everything had to have a creator, it would not apply to him.....

I stated that I believed the universe to have a creator, after observing the universe....it is not Christianity which argues that the universe must have a beginning....Christians state that they believe the universe has a beginning and that beginning was God's act of creation.....it is science that tells us the universe MUST have a beginning, based upon examination of reality.....they even have a name for that beginning....the Big Bang.....

obviously science cannot observe that which is not physical....thus it has no opinion with respect to the question of whether God MUST have a beginning.....Christianity teaches that he does not, that he is eternal....

and I have not spoken in favor of bringing God into the arena of science, though I do propose that intelligent design ought to be presented as the equivalent of the concept of abiogenesis......

[Charles V]

and I have not spoken in favor of bringing God into the arena of science, though I do propose that intelligent design ought to be presented as the equivalent of the concept of abiogenesis......

With this acknowledgement, I feel that any further discussion will probably be a derailment of the original topic. However, just one more clarification:

it is science that tells us the universe MUST have a beginning, based upon examination of reality.....they even have a name for that beginning....the Big Bang.....

Not exactly. The Big Bang is a theory used to explain the past and present conditions of the Universe. But the Big Bang theory simply states that the current state of the Universe originated at a single point in time in some point of infinite density and temperature. As far as we know, the process of expansion and contraction of the Universe (ultimately forming the point of infinite density and temperature) could have happened an infinite amount of times before ''our'' Big Bang occurred. So no, the Big Bang does not say that the Universe began at that point in time.

Now, I think this quote by Stephen Hawking could prove interesting:

''So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?''

[Rage]

My last chemistry teacher certainly wasn't part of that %. She is like one of those teachers who out of school would wear shirts like.... "BITCHES DON'T KNOW 'BOUT MY ISOTOPES'.

Yeah she was one loco burrito.

[tecoyah]

which pretty much equals the effort you have put into supporting your arguments....hanging on to the end of a string......


Yeah....I guess I need to place more data....and less opinion like you do:


Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html?ic

This is the type of experimental observation science uses to forward the evil agenda we call....theory.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html?ic

This is the type of experimental observation science uses to forward the evil agenda we call....theory.

/shrugs....I see nothing to argue about in that article....it's obvious that changes take place....otherwise all dogs would look like wolves......it's a shame none of that experimental observation is available for what you are trying to "prove" in this thread.....

[I Like Beer]

/shrugs....I see nothing to argue about in that article....it's obvious that changes take place....otherwise all dogs would look like wolves......it's a shame none of that experimental observation is available for what you are trying to "prove" in this thread.....

But, doesn't Genesis 1 make it pretty clear that God 'created' every living thing that "moveth" and "creepeth"?

Why do you need evolution to explain the differences between dogs and wolves? Are you suggesting that God DIDN'T create all the creatures in the beginning?

[tecoyah]

/shrugs....I see nothing to argue about in that article....it's obvious that changes take place....otherwise all dogs would look like wolves......it's a shame none of that experimental observation is available for what you are trying to "prove" in this thread.....

What is it you believe I am trying to prove?


Everything I have posted was in direct reply to your own questions I think, and the only thing I have tried to prove at all, is that science uses observation to create theory. We have been using spontanious biology as a template for that discussion of my opinion....that is all.
That you cannot seem to grasp the actual debate topic does not make it any less valid....and instead makes you seem a bit confused.

I will try to clarify (again):

1) My opinion of lifes origins cannot allow for the genesis account, as there is absolutely no basis at all in scientific data and observation. If by chance there is something I missed....please enlighten me.

2) Spontanious Biology is nothing but a theory, it does however have a basis in observed science and therefore is more acceptable in my mind.

3) I have consistently placed information before you to help understand where my opinion was formed, You have contributed nothing in the way of Data to back up your opinions, and instead have become more and more defensive.






As far as debates go...I think this one is over, and you failed to make a valid position.

[PostmodernProphet]

But, doesn't Genesis 1 make it pretty clear that God 'created' every living thing that "moveth" and "creepeth"?

Why do you need evolution to explain the differences between dogs and wolves? Are you suggesting that God DIDN'T create all the creatures in the beginning?

???....my neighbor's dog had a litter just last week.....I don't think they were created "in the beginning".....I don't "need" evolution.....I observe evolution......

[PostmodernProphet]

What is it you believe I am trying to prove?



what you entered this thread saying....

I said abiogenesis wasn't based on evidence.....you responded " it is based on sound physical evidence." {post #24}...so far, all you have been able to provide is the fact that organic chemicals exist.....

[tecoyah]

what you entered this thread saying....

I said abiogenesis wasn't based on evidence.....you responded " it is based on sound physical evidence." {post #24}...so far, all you have been able to provide is the fact that organic chemicals exist.....


You said:abiogenesis isn't based on evidence.....it's as much "magic" as an intelligent designer creating......

To which I replied:Actually, abiogenesis is theory based on observation. It has been proven in multiple experiments that energy added to Chemical mixtures indeed create the building blocks of RNA (tholins)...the theory merely postulates that given enough time to interact, these compounds could handily form biological masses.
The theory may be incorrect, we simply do not know (thus a theory)...but it is based on sound physical evidence.


.........we are still awaiting your evidence that a Fairy God Father just snapped his fingers and *poof*.....here we are.

Any Data backing your assertion will do, I have provided quite a bit for my opinion, even if you do not agree with it. You provide NOTHING!

[PostmodernProphet]

You said:

To which I replied:


.........we are still awaiting your evidence that a Fairy God Father just snapped his fingers and *poof*.....here we are.

Any Data backing your assertion will do, I have provided quite a bit for my opinion, even if you do not agree with it. You provide NOTHING!

dude....I am not the one who claimed he had evidence....I have always freely admitted that my position is faith based....you are the one making the false claims he can't back up....

just admit it and walk away with some dignity.....

[I Like Beer]

???....my neighbor's dog had a litter just last week.....I don't think they were created "in the beginning".....I don't "need" evolution.....I observe evolution......

You observe evolution? Very nice. So, you have no problem with the origin of species through natural selection? That's all good?

So then, what did God create at the beginning? A few select animal species and humans?

[PostmodernProphet]

You observe evolution? Very nice. So, you have no problem with the origin of species through natural selection? That's all good?

So then, what did God create at the beginning? A few select animal species and humans?

consider this, Beer....human beings, through controlled breeding, are able to create new breeds of animals in a relatively short period of time......we have reports of how scientists, by creating a controlled environment were able to trigger new species of lizards and bacteria.....

now, assuming for the sake of argument a creator capable of creating DNA and the environment, how difficult would it be for that creator to trigger chromosome changes that could result in species changes within a single generation?........

I'm not going to take the position that the creator had to do all of his creating at one time and then stay out of things forever after.....

[tecoyah]

consider this, Beer....human beings, through controlled breeding, are able to create new breeds of animals in a relatively short period of time......we have reports of how scientists, by creating a controlled environment were able to trigger new species of lizards and bacteria.....

now, assuming for the sake of argument a creator capable of creating DNA and the environment, how difficult would it be for that creator to trigger chromosome changes that could result in species changes within a single generation?........

I'm not going to take the position that the creator had to do all of his creating at one time and then stay out of things forever after.....


Thats just the thing...you do not need to forward any information other than opinion to continue, but we are asking (and providing) actual Data and logical proposition. The position you have taken cannot be debated, as there is nothing within it to actually discuss other than your opinion...this is not debate, it is discussion.
As a general rule one should have Hard Data to solidify an argument, or at the minimum some level of theoretical explanation for any debate to be of value. As it is we have spent this entire time giving you possible debate topics which you simply disregard with a snide remark, and jab at the opponent.
I would hope you can see why many people do not take you seriously as a debate partner, and instead use you as entertainment.
You base your entire position on the Non-Debatable (faith), and to be honest most who spend the time to understand the science behind this discussion must invariably disregard ID and Genesis in favor of the more Data based possible answers. Please note I am not calling you "Wrong" as you are obviously choosing what is right for "You". But, until you can at least provide something tangible for debate.....You contribute nothing but opinion and dogma.

[PostmodernProphet]

As a general rule one should have Hard Data to solidify an argument

oh cut the crap....you haven't provided hard data to support abiogenesis and can't....you are in no different position than I am, except for the fact you keep pretending you have evidence on your side.....you don't.....you contribute opinion as well, but pretend it isn't.....

[I Like Beer]

consider this, Beer....human beings, through controlled breeding, are able to create new breeds of animals in a relatively short period of time......we have reports of how scientists, by creating a controlled environment were able to trigger new species of lizards and bacteria.....

now, assuming for the sake of argument a creator capable of creating DNA and the environment, how difficult would it be for that creator to trigger chromosome changes that could result in species changes within a single generation?........

I'm not going to take the position that the creator had to do all of his creating at one time and then stay out of things forever after.....

I would quibble and say the lizards were not put in a controlled environment. They were introduced into a novel, natural environment and they changed without any influence by man. The only role humans played was to introduce them to the new environment. They also weren't new species - they had just evolved new traits that allowed them to adapt to their environment. They were on their way to becoming a new species, which is what Origin of Species through Natural Selection predicts.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. You believe that the creator guides the development of new species, even now? That He continues to actively take part? That it was God's intervention that allowed those bacteria to metabolize citrate and gave those lizards the advantages they needed to survive on that island?

Is that accurate? Or, were these recent examples of evolution in action happen without God's interference because they were somehow controlled experiments? (Lizard example was not a controlled experiment).

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you (and that could be). What you appear to be saying is that humans can effect animals (including humans) through selective breeding. With that, I would agree whole heartedly (there are many examples of it, from domestic animals to the propagation of haemophilia in the British royal family).

However, when the process is not guided by humans, it is the will of God?

Would that be accurate?

[tecoyah]

oh cut the crap....you haven't provided hard data to support abiogenesis and can't....you are in no different position than I am, except for the fact you keep pretending you have evidence on your side.....you don't.....you contribute opinion as well, but pretend it isn't.....

Again...(third time), I am not trying to prove abiogenesis, you keep shifting this mess away from my point. I am in a far superior position to yourself as I am not trying to prove a theory, but instead providing information on the "Reason" science considers it a theory at all...the experimental observations that underly the explanation.
I completely understand that you will not, and in fact cannot provide like Data for you faith...as there are none. But please do not attempt to derail the discussion by placing thoughts in my words.

I do not wish to validate a theory at all....but, would love it if you somehow managed to type anything other than opinion and insult.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would quibble and say the lizards were not put in a controlled environment. They were introduced into a novel, natural environment and they changed without any influence by man. The only role humans played was to introduce them to the new environment. They also weren't new species - they had just evolved new traits that allowed them to adapt to their environment. They were on their way to becoming a new species, which is what Origin of Species through Natural Selection predicts.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. You believe that the creator guides the development of new species, even now? That He continues to actively take part? That it was God's intervention that allowed those bacteria to metabolize citrate and gave those lizards the advantages they needed to survive on that island?

Is that accurate? Or, were these recent examples of evolution in action happen without God's interference because they were somehow controlled experiments? (Lizard example was not a controlled experiment).

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you (and that could be). What you appear to be saying is that humans can effect animals (including humans) through selective breeding. With that, I would agree whole heartedly (there are many examples of it, from domestic animals to the propagation of haemophilia in the British royal family).

However, when the process is not guided by humans, it is the will of God?

Would that be accurate?

I say "controlled" simply because they were placed on an island where they didn't have the option of migrating to an environment that was more suited to their existing nature.....they had to adapt or die....

with respect to controlling evolution....I believe that God created life with the capability of adapting to it's environment...early on those studying DNA were puzzled since there seemed to large segments that were "unused".....now the theory is being put forward that it is these unused segments that are employed in adaptation to environmental change....

I don't believe that God created 37,000 kinds of beetle, or that he "directed" the evolution of 37,000 kinds.....but I do believe he created that which he intended to be "beetles" as well as that which he intended to be "butterflies" and that which he intended to be "whales" and that which he intended to be "humans"......

[PostmodernProphet]

Again...(third time), I am not trying to prove abiogenesis,

then you sure have wasted a lot of time, since that is the only thing we have been debating for the last ten pages or so.....

[I Like Beer]

I say "controlled" simply because they were placed on an island where they didn't have the option of migrating to an environment that was more suited to their existing nature.....they had to adapt or die....

with respect to controlling evolution....I believe that God created life with the capability of adapting to it's environment...early on those studying DNA were puzzled since there seemed to large segments that were "unused".....now the theory is being put forward that it is these unused segments that are employed in adaptation to environmental change....

I don't believe that God created 37,000 kinds of beetle, or that he "directed" the evolution of 37,000 kinds.....but I do believe he created that which he intended to be "beetles" as well as that which he intended to be "butterflies" and that which he intended to be "whales" and that which he intended to be "humans"......

Controlled, in scientific terms, has to do with the conditions under which an experiment is carried out (like the bacterial one). I still don't see how the lizards were 'controlled'. They were isolated and stressed but not controlled. Oh well.

Then why did you also say the bacteria were controlled? They were in an ideal environment for them. Did you use the word once to mean two separate things in each case?

If God created life with the ability to adapt, we don't need God's intervention to explain evolution after a single creation event, correct? Are you a strong believer in fate?

Do you have a link to this theory you're talking about (non-coding regions of DNA important in evolution)? I would like to read about your version before I comment.

It is interesting that you mention whales. They are an interesting case.

According to Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales". That seems to suggest that God directly made the whales. However, whale ancestors (pakicetids) are mammals that walked on land.

So, if God created the things that would become whales (pakicedids) as you say. Why does Genesis say God created whales? That seems contrary to your opinion - what am I missing?

[PostmodernProphet]

Controlled, in scientific terms, has to do with the conditions under which an experiment is carried out (like the bacterial one). I still don't see how the lizards were 'controlled'. They were isolated and stressed but not controlled. Oh well.

Then why did you also say the bacteria were controlled? They were in an ideal environment for them. Did you use the word once to mean two separate things in each case?both were isolated from other strains that might have altered the results.....

If God created life with the ability to adapt, we don't need God's intervention to explain evolution after a single creation event, correct?doesn't matter if we "need" it....he's God......he will intervene any time he chooses to.....

However, whale ancestors (pakicetids) are mammals that walked on land.perhaps in your version of the story of origins......


Do you have a link to this theory you're talking about (non-coding regions of DNA important in evolution)?

lords, I will try googling for it.....it was several years ago I read it....don't remember if it was in a book or on the internet or wherever, at the moment......

[tecoyah]

both were isolated from other strains that might have altered the results.....

doesn't matter if we "need" it....he's God......he will intervene any time he chooses to.....

perhaps in your version of the story of origins......


http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh90/tecoyah/evolution_of_whales.jpg

[tecoyah]

http://www.becominghuman.org/

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh90/tecoyah/hominids2.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

found an article on the issue of "junk" DNA....

http://www.rae.org/introns.html

[Alonzo]

About "junk" DNA:

ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2007) — Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once described by geneticists as "gene deserts." These sections are, in fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed "regulatory jungles."

"It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving," Bejerano said. His work picking out these snippets and describing why they might exist will be published in the April 23 advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It turns out that most of the segments described in the research paper cluster near genes that play a carefully orchestrated role during an animal's first few weeks after conception. Bejerano and his colleagues think that these sequences help in the intricate choreography of when and where those genes flip on as the animal lays out its body plan. In particular, the group found the sequences to be especially abundant near genes that help cells stick together. These genes play a crucial role early in an animal's life, helping cells migrate to the correct location or form into organs and tissues of the correct shape.

The 10,402 sequences studied by Bejerano, along with David Haussler, PhD, professor of biomolecular engineering at UC-Santa Cruz, are remnants of unusual DNA pieces called transposons that duplicate themselves and hop around the genome. "We used to think they were mostly messing things up. Here is a case where they are actually useful," Bejerano said.

He suspects that when a transposon is plopped down in a region where it wasn't needed, it slowly accumulated mutations until it no longer resembled its original sequence. The genome is littered with these decaying transposons. When a transposon dropped into a location where it was useful, however, it held on to much of the original sequence, making it possible for Bejerano to pick out.

In past work, Bejerano and his co-workers had identified a handful of transposons that seemed to regulate nearby genes. However, it wasn't clear how common the phenomenon might be. "Now we've shown that transposons may be a major vehicle for evolutionary novelty," he said.

The paper's first author, Craig Lowe, a graduate student in Haussler's lab at UC-Santa Cruz, said finding the transposons was just the first step. "Now we are trying to nail down exactly what the elements are doing," he said.

Bejerano's work wouldn't have been possible without two things that became available over the past few years: the complete gene sequence of many vertebrate species, and fast computers running sophisticated new genetic analysis software. "Right now it's like being a kid in a candy warehouse," Bejerano said. Computer-savvy biologists have the tools to ask questions about how genes and chromosomes evolve and change, questions that just a few years ago were unanswerable.

Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off.

Funding for the study came through Haussler, who is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

[I Like Beer]

both were isolated from other strains that might have altered the results.....

How were the lizards isolated from other strains when they were competing with the indigenous populations?

doesn't matter if we "need" it....he's God......he will intervene any time he chooses to.....

But that's not the point. In what you said, He isn't 'needed in order to explain further evolution', is He?

perhaps in your version of the story of origins......

Uhhmmm... I thought you said you understood science? So, the fossil record is what? Fiction? A fairy tale? In this case, your faith flied directly in the face of established scientific fact. How do you reconcile that?

lords, I will try googling for it.....it was several years ago I read it....don't remember if it was in a book or on the internet or wherever, at the moment......

Never mind. If it's old I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about - introns?

[I Like Beer]

found an article on the issue of "junk" DNA....

http://www.rae.org/introns.html

Not a bad article. Of course, I quibble over his one line conclusion that this "provides evidence for intelligent design...".

Why would God give us mitochondria that are bacterial in origin? With circular genomes, reproducing ONLY through binary fission (if you lose all your mitochondria, they can't be replaced), cell membranes different from those of other cell organelles, ribosomes similar to those found in bacteria....

Why would an intelligent designer do that? Hmmmmm......

Of course, this is only one of a myriad of examples.

[tecoyah]

It is becoming more accepted that so called "junk DNA" (which is actually a form of RNA within the matrix), is one of the likely mutation activators within the genome. I fail to see any indication of the Fairy God Father in play here.

ENCODE labs analysed 30 million bases or "letters" of human DNA - about 1 per cent of the total - covering 44 different and randomly chosen sites in our genome, and measured the associated RNA transcription in living cells. The whole sample was analysed independently by a range of methods in 38 labs, then cross-checked.

With around 400 known genes in the chosen sample, researchers expected an equal number of different RNA transcripts according to the central dogma of one RNA copy per gene. Instead, they found about twice the predicted quantity of RNA transcripts. Moreover, they also found almost 10 times the expected number of gene switches - the points in DNA where transcription can be activated (Nature, vol 447, p 799).

Many of the RNA transcripts were copies of sections lying across genes and their adjacent stretches of "junk" DNA (see Diagram). Even more surprising, many transcripts were copies of junk DNA situated further from genes. The researchers speculate that the unexpected glut of gene switches might explain the extra RNA.

Birney says that the additional switches may be mutations that appear by accident and then generate new slugs of RNA, but because they are produced randomly, most are evolutionarily neutral "passengers" in the genome. There might be rare occasions, however, when a new RNA does confer an advantage.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426086.000-junk-dna-makes-compulsive-reading.html

They studied over 110,000 stretches of DNA called ‘conserved non-coding sequences’ (CNSs), that are largely similar in a wide variety of animals. Of these sequences, 992 showed large numbers of changes that were specific to humans.

This number is much higher than would be expected if these DNA regions were drifting aimlessly in the evolutionary river. Their frequency is the mark of natural selection – these sequences must have changed for a reason.

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/non-coding-dna-drove-human-brain-evolution-by-making-nerve-cells-stickier/