Blizzard Warrior said:
I am not going with the mainstream heart of the argument here; I am looking at an alternative approach. Now I am not a ‘young earth creationist’. I understand that lack of evidence is not positive proof for I.D. Now it is clear that both theories have problems with the theory. Also in remember in the words of Samuel Jackson: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Let's look at the definition of a scientific theory, shall we?
"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."
Does I.D. meet any of those critera?
1. Does it describe the behavior of natural phenomenon?
-No. All it does is make a statement that "things are really complex, so something must have designed us.". It provides no explanation, just a useless statement.
2. Is it predictive?
-No. Unlike Evolutionary Theory, I.D. provides only a statement about the past, and no predictive ability at all. It cannot be interpolated or extrapolated to provide any predictions or consistent statements about what our world is like.
3. Is it testable?
-No, it is not. You have no way of verifying the claims of I.D. other than an appeal to ignorance that is Irreducible Complexity. The only test that could exist that would provide validity to the claims of intelligent design would be provable, valid documentation of an alien race/deity
4. Is it falsifiable?
-No. I.D. is inherently unprovable without a time machine.
Do not exactly mimic? Isn’t that a very light way of putting it, for example they only used 13 of the 21 BASIC amino acids in their experimentation right? Moreover they ‘collect’ the molecules in a special chamber to protect it from lightning, severely lowering (I would presume) the realistic ness behind it.
Like I said, that's not the point. The point was to show that organic molecules could come from inorganic processes, not to show the exact abiogenesis process that occurred on Earth.
Firstly lets define what the Cambrian period is? And that site you gave me also had this: For many people of various faiths, support for the scientific theory of evolution has not supplanted their religious belief. And throughout the modern Judeo-Christian tradition, leaders have asserted that evolutionary science offers a valid perspective on the natural world. They say that evolution is consistent with religious doctrine and complements, rather than conflicts with, religion. So evolution doesn’t necessarily water down the truth of Christianity (at least I could loggicaly infer that from this site)
That's rather irrelevant. I find Christianity to be nonsensical anyways, but there are many people are both Christians and Evolutionists.
Ok, let me just verify this so your saying that similarities between species of a supposedly common ancestor, is NOT evidence of a common ancestor.
Uh, no. I'm not saying that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Interesting, im guessing it refutes the statement: Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
Yes, it does - and in some detail.
So it is NOT really evidence of natural selection?
...Yes, it's even
better evidence of Natural Selection than previously thought. There were many factors acting as selective agents, not just the predation of birds, and they were not taken into account. How could you possibly not accept Natural Selection? The development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is right in front of you, and is a very simple example of Natural Selection that presents a great problem for modern medicine.