doughgirl said:
You label me a backwards bible thumper because I question evolution. I get the impression that you think that I try to halt science totally.
doughgirl, analogies based on subjective observation are not compatible with the scientific method. I believe that that is the main thing irritating
Thinker.
Try identifying exactly what flavor of evolution you are claiming is unproven or have a disagreement with. Is it Origin of Earth Life? Random Mutation, Adaptation and Natural Selection? Origin of Man?
Rebut the evidences for the type of evolution to disagree with. Provide as many sources as you can.
I'll give you an example.
Take Origin of Earth Life.
I would preface my statements with conceding the possibility of a
transpermia alternative to evolution in this regard.
From a religious standpoint, the idea that basic biological life was brought to earth, even in seed form and similar, is not necessarily contrary to Christian dogma; as Genesis is inherently vague, and the
Kolbrin (click on "
read on line") offers a different point of view of the same act of creation found in Genesis.
From a scientific stand point, transpermia, be it an exotic microbe, microscopic animal, or similar, that can survive in space on it's own (like the
Water Bear), or contained within ice crystals in an earthbound meteor, is not out of the question.
More exotic forms of transpermia may be examining the
Red Rain in Kerala ( "Blood-of-God", anyone?), Richerd C. Headland’s
Mars Tidal Model accompanied by an argument for alien life. You could argue that this alien life is seen religiously as The Watchers, Nefilim, or similar.
***
After having prefaced my comments on evolution, as it regards the Origin of Earth Life, I would then move on to rebuking the primary evidences supporting it.
I'll give you an example:
The Stanley Miller experiment.
Quite simply put, the Stanley Miller experiment was not designed to produce organic
life, which is what it would need to do in order to exist as concrete evidence of life coming from "
natural causes" ie: chance. Producing organic compounds is simply not enough. At best, the Stanley Miller experiment only demonstrates that the evolutionary process need not take billions of years, but could happen in just a small fraction of that time.
Miller choose a Hydrogen rich mixture of Methane, Ammonia and water vapor, which is consistent with what many scientists though back then. But scientists don't believe that anymore.
As a geophysicist with the Carnage Institution said in the 1960's, "
What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence, but much against it." [[
source: Philip H. Abelson, "Chemical events of the primitive earth," Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences USA 55 (1966),pg 1365-72. ]]
By the mid 1970's, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere "
has been abandoned". {{
source: Michael Florkin, "Ideas and Experiments in the field of Pre biological Chemical Evolution," Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B (1975), pg 231-60 }}
Two of the leading Origin-of-Life researchers Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong mixture. {{
source: Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (New York: Dekker, revised edition 1977), pg 43, 74-76. }}
Science Magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because "
the early apnosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation",". {{
source: John Cohen, "Novel Center Seeks to Add Spark to Origins of Life," Science 270 (1995), pg 1925-26. }}
Now, what happens when we replay Miller's experiment using an accurate apnosphere? You produce Formaldehyde and Cyanide. Organic compounds, sure, but Formaldehyde, for example, fries proteins.
It is my experience that school textbooks fudge this saying (
I'm paraphrasing) "
Well, even if you replay the miller experiment you still get organic compounds". So it begs the question: Couldn't a good chemist turn Formaldehyde and Cyanide into organic compounds?
Which is more or less a joke, because when you combine Formaldehyde and Cyanide you get embalming fluid, not life.
***
This does not automatically mean that God created everything in a blink, only that the Stanley Miller experiment holds no scientific weight in evolution, giving way to other theories for how life started on earth. Like Transpermia.
***
I'll leave you to it now.
Happy debating. :2wave:
