Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Cypress said:
We do not yet understand biological emergence, dark energy, the quantum wave function collapse, and we cannot reconcile general relativity with quantum theory.
Click to expand...
Buzzword fallacies.
Cypress said:
And yet I am not aware of one legitimate scientist who has thrown their hands up in defeat and pronounced it is too hard to figure out and it must have been a result of divine intervention.
Click to expand...
Apparently you are unaware of the number of Christian scientists.
Cypress said:
The odds are we will use our faculties of reason to ultimately find physical and chemical principles that have good explanatory power.
Click to expand...
All theories are explanatory arguments. It makes no different whether that is a nonscientific theory or a theory of science.
Cypress said:
The realm of the inexplicable shrinks decade after decade.
Click to expand...
Divisional error fallacy. There is no quantity here.
Cypress said:
From the metaphysical angle, the better question is: where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from? Why is their order rather than chaos underlying them? Why is there something rather than nothing?
Click to expand...
The laws of chemistry and physics are transcriptions from theories of science into a closed system (mathematics). A theory is an explanatory argument. It imposes order.
Cypress said:
If you want to go searching for providential creation, that is where I suggest starting.
Click to expand...
The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science. Science does not bother with religions.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No shit, INT.

The exact age of the Earth is unknown, but it's approximate age is measured to be 4.7 billion years. Do you have an alternative view? Any links to support it?

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q1152.html
How old is the Earth?
Radioactive dating using uranium decay to lead gives an age near 4.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 0.1 billion years either way. The oldest rocks recovered from ancient geological strata are about 3.9 billion years old or thereabouts. The oldest moon rock samples from the lunar highland regions are about 4.2 billion years old. And meteorite samples recovered from many localities indicate ages of 4.5-4.9 billion years for the minerals, or dust grains. Presumably, this meteoritic material dates from a time when the solar system was just forming, and the planets had not as yet begun to appear. The oldest signs of life in the form of fossil bacteria, date from about 3.8 billion years and indicate that life began to appear on the surface of the Earth within about 500 million years after the planet had begun to form a stable crust that allowed radioactive isotopes to be trapped, and allow the possible of radioactive dating to yield ages near 4.5-4.7 billion years.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/in-depth/
Potential for Life
Earth has a very hospitable temperature and mix of chemicals that have made life possible here. Most notably, Earth is unique in that most of our planet is covered in water, since the temperature allows liquid water to exist for extended periods of time. Earth's vast oceans provided a convenient place for life to begin about 3.8 billion years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know the age of the Earth.
 
Darth Omar said:
What I meant was the less you know about the inner workings and integrated complexity found even in the most ‘primitive’ cells, the more one realizes what, exactly, is being asked of an abiogenesis *theory*.

And I’m afraid you have it backwards: in Darwin’s day it was a simple matter of natural selection acting on blobs of protoplasm. With the advent of election microscopy and the bio molecular sciences it’s become apparent that those little ‘blobs’ have operational codes that we can only describe as a kind of software along with some pretty nifty nano machinery.

It’s become decidedly more difficult to conceive—not less. I’m not saying give up, my point is they have a pretty steep mountain to climb. And minds shouldn’t be closed to the prospect that it’s impossible to climb.

I don’t know about anyone else, but mine is still wide open. Let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

I am aware that what is required to make the jump from an inert pre-biotic media to complex cellular organization is a level of complexity we have barely scratched, and likely required many intermediate and interim chemical-physical steps we are currently not even aware of.

I have also allowed for the possibility that the series of chemical steps required to reach cellular organization may have been so improbable it might not have been replicated with any frequency in the galaxy.

After all, I remind myself that in 3.8 billion years of a habitable earth, it looks like DNA-based life only evolved once-- and every living thing today is a remote genetic inheritance of those first cyanobacteria and archea.

As to Darwin, his research was on speciation. Not emergence.

Darwinian evolution is a misnomer. In some respects, Darwinism was discredited. By 1890, Darwinian evolution was out of favor. It took the discovery of Mendel's work on genetics and the grand synthesis of the 1930s to put Darwin back in favor again. So really, the modern synthesis of evolution is more a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection -- even though Darwin hogs all the credit.
 
Cypress said:
I am aware that what is required to make the jump from an inert pre-biotic media to complex cellular organization is a level of complexity we have barely scratched, and likely required many intermediate and interim chemical-physical steps we are currently not even aware of.

I have also allowed for the possibility that the series of chemical steps required to reach cellular organization may have been so improbable it might not have been replicated with any frequency in the galaxy.

After all, I remind myself that in 3.8 billion years of a habitable earth, it looks like DNA-based life only evolved once-- and every living thing today is a remote genetic inheritance of those first cyanobacteria and archea.

As to Darwin, his research was on speciation. Not emergence.

Darwinian evolution is a misnomer. In some respects, Darwinism was discredited. By 1890, Darwinian evolution was out of favor. It took the discovery of Mendel's work on genetics and the grand synthesis of the 1930s to put Darwin back in favor again. So really, the modern synthesis of evolution is more a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection -- even though Darwin hogs all the credit.
Click to expand...

Mendel was a Christian and a *pure* scientist. Darwin was a world class observer but more of scientific philosopher, imo. I know all about Darwin.

Myself and Sir Francis Crick are/were very skeptical of the prospect of DNA evolving even incrementally from bare chemistry. I doubt anything that’s happened in the last half century would have changed his mind.
 
Darth Omar said:
Mendel was a Christian and a *pure* scientist. Darwin was a world class observer but more of scientific philosopher, imo. I know all about Darwin.

Myself and Sir Francis Crick are/were very skeptical of the prospect of DNA evolving even incrementally from bare chemistry. I doubt anything that’s happened in the last half century would have changed his mind.
Click to expand...

If DNA and other cellular structures organized out of inert pre-biotic molecules, there are undoubtedly a series of interim steps we have yet to even understand or conceptualize.

One thought is that organic molecules were deposited on, and used the crystalline lattice structure of clay minerals as an initial template of sorts.

Mendel was a Benedictine monk, and he is one of the reasons I never accept the stereotype that there is a long standing and permanent state of war and hostility between science and religion.
 
Cypress said:
If DNA and other cellular structures organized out of inert pre-biotic molecules, there are undoubtedly a series of interim steps we have yet to even understand or conceptualize.

One thought is that organic molecules were deposited on, and used the crystalline lattice structure of clay minerals as an initial template of sorts.

Mendel was a Benedictine monk, and he is one of the reasons I never accept the stereotype that there is a long standing and permanent state of war and hostility between science and religion.
Click to expand...

Mendel was brilliant. To even conceptualize something like genetics *from scratch* and just using garden peas to work it all out is nothing short of amazing. Of course, monks were single and had lots of time on their hands.

I’ve read about the lattice bit. Not saying it’s impossible for life to have come about that way but it’s a stretch.
 
Micawber said:
I met Crick before he died. :cool: I know people. You sir, are no Sir Francis Crick! - read in voice of Walter Mondale.
Click to expand...

Who was the female researcher Watson and Crick got a lot of their data from, but then neglected to share any credit with her once the accolades started rolling in?
 
Darth Omar said:
Mendel was a Christian and a *pure* scientist. Darwin was a world class observer but more of scientific philosopher, imo. I know all about Darwin.

Myself and Sir Francis Crick are/were very skeptical of the prospect of DNA evolving even incrementally from bare chemistry. I doubt anything that’s happened in the last half century would have changed his mind.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' philosopher. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. Science is not philosophy.
 
Cypress said:
If DNA and other cellular structures organized out of inert pre-biotic molecules, there are undoubtedly a series of interim steps we have yet to even understand or conceptualize.

One thought is that organic molecules were deposited on, and used the crystalline lattice structure of clay minerals as an initial template of sorts.

Mendel was a Benedictine monk, and he is one of the reasons I never accept the stereotype that there is a long standing and permanent state of war and hostility between science and religion.
Click to expand...

You are not discussing science anywhere. You are pushing your religion over his.
 
Into the Night said:
You are not discussing science anywhere. You are pushing your religion over his.
Click to expand...

Educated speculation is part and parcel of science; it is where ideas and hypotheses are cultivated.

You would know this if you had not telegraphed your ignorance about quantum mechanics and planetary science on this thread.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' philosopher. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. Science is not philosophy.
Click to expand...

You can quibble and whine about his syntax, but it is clear that what he wrote is reasonable.

Some of history's most preeminent scientists were philosophically-thinking scientists.

The division between science and philosophy is a recent artifact of the 19th century. All investigations of the natural world used to be called natural philosophy..

Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were philosophically thinking scientists, and Einstein in particular openly admitted that.
 
Cypress said:
Educated speculation is part and parcel of science; it is where ideas and hypotheses are cultivated.

You would know this if you had not telegraphed your ignorance about quantum mechanics and planetary science on this thread.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a casino. It is not speculation. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
A hypothesis comes out a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
There is no such thing as 'planetary science'.

It is YOU using buzzwords.
 
Cypress said:
You can quibble and whine about his syntax, but it is clear that what he wrote is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's why I corrected it.
Cypress said:
Some of history's most preeminent scientists were philosophically-thinking scientists.
Click to expand...
Science isn't scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Cypress said:
The division between science and philosophy is a recent artifact of the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Cypress said:
All investigations of the natural world used to be called natural philosophy..
Click to expand...
Science by another name.
Cypress said:
Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were philosophically thinking scientists, and Einstein in particular openly admitted that.
Click to expand...
So?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top