| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elmer" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 12:02:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Abiogensis |
Keima Sente wrote:
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations,
form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further
observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions
based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible
to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that
it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat
it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such
an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
At one time the Earth was molten. Life as we know it was impossible. Life exists
now. What inescapable conclusion are we led to reach? I suppose one can
postulate miracles, but that isn't science. This kind of reasoning also means
that history is not scientific, so astronomy and anthropology and paleonology
and geology would no longer be science.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion
that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,”
Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”
Please give a provide a citation and date for this quote. Wald died in 1997 at
the age of 90.
But what
does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here
we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that
sound like objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
“simple dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen.”28
And Woodger died in 1981 at the age of 87.
How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist
Loren Eiseley
Born, 1907 and died 1977.
conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears
better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many
supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such
matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the
overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding
dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the
scientific method.
Can you provide anything more up to date?
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogensis |
27 Jan 2008 12:18:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:02:45 GMT, Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
Keima Sente wrote:
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific
fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been
described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations,
form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further
observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions
based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible
to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that
it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when
evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been
verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat
it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such
an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to
elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
At one time the Earth was molten. Life as we know it was impossible. Life exists
now. What inescapable conclusion are we led to reach? I suppose one can
postulate miracles, but that isn't science. This kind of reasoning also means
that history is not scientific, so astronomy and anthropology and paleonology
and geology would no longer be science.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion
that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not
possible. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,
Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Please give a provide a citation and date for this quote. Wald died in 1997 at
the age of 90.
Also the surrounding context.
Because it happened over time not spontaneeously so he is actually
right.
It doesn't mean what creationists would like it to.
These morons project their "poof, God magicked it it all at once" onto
everybody else.
But what
does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: Yet here
we areas a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Does that
sound like objective science?
Why are cretionists such dishonest liars?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as
simple dogmatismasserting that what you want to believe did in fact
happen.28
And Woodger died in 1981 at the age of 87.
Again, he could have been talking about the dishonesty of
creationists. And being British and better educated than American
fundies, he probably was.
How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this
apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist
Loren Eiseley
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". That is a dishonest
invention of creationists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
