Should we reopen the book on Evolution?

i made a mistake. i misread what you said. i thought you said those elements cant help but form life on other planets.

 

Red55:

.

Ok, but Piltdown Man is a case of fraud. Fraud does take place in science. The scientific community is not exempt from corruption.

From Wikipedia:

And furthermore, were these two example included in textbook publications for years after it was known to be untrue?

I'm not really involved in academic circles so again, some folks claim these were included in textbooks for years to support evolutionary theory even though they were known to be false. I can't really confirm that from where I sit.

I will try to stay on the scientific argument more and less of the philosophical points but it dawned on me today one reason there seems to be such a divergence of attitudes regarding these types of subjects.

As a catholic I assume that all human beings are tainted with Original Sin and more or less slightly inclined to evil (or for a less strong sounding word, corruption).

I also assume that there is an active agent of evil in the world, namely the devil. These assumptions make it seem much more likely that people in positions of power are tempted to abuse their positions for personal gain.

This includes scientists and government officials.....

I think those that aren't working off these assumption of Original Sin, etc. tend to believe more in the idea of Progress and if there are some hiccups along the way they are more a case of incompetence than corruption.

I think this may be why I tend to be so skeptical of those in power.

 

Red55:

.

If this is true, and I think it is, then isn't it true that if life isn't found on other planets the only remaining explanation is that life was created here by God.

And about this abiogenesis thing.....I'll have to look into it more but I cannot begin to believe they have proof of this concept. Life is always caused by an already living thing.

How could a living organism spring from non-living matter? This seems impossible on its face....

 

Red55:

100% correct. Judas was one of Christ's chosen apostle for goodness sake. The Catholic Church has had spectacular examples of scandals and corruption. I still believe the Catholic Church has the story right about life and mankind.

Those in position of power undergo temptations that most "normal" people have no conception of.......maybe that is why it's supposed to be easy for poor people to make it to heaven? The bus-boy doens't have many options to enrich himself at others expense but Fed Chairman could probably pull it off, if so inclined.

So this is again why I have to point out that a statement is true or not true independent of the person who makes it.

So is evolution true? If it is true, it's not because of scientific consensus. Neither was AGW.

 

if a possibility cannot be proven it remains a possibility

to say that i could long jump 30 ft is a valid possibility just as the idea that you could. it would be up to you to determine what chance of success you or i would have based on available information regarding our physical capabilities, etc.

to conclude that i would have no chance (possibility) is absolute and there are very few absolutes.

probability is another argument altogether

 

Red55:

Most of the stuff I read on abiogenesis indicates a lot of problems for the theory.

link:

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

also:

Same stupid point. Just because a scientist says A, it doesn't mean A is true. Just because a government official, a ref or whoever says A it doesn't matter who has said it....A will only be true if it is true independent of the person. Objective truth exist independent of human beings and their ability to comprehend it.

 

you are of course aware that the only reason to oppose evolution is because of religion, right? and you are further aware that religion is faith-based, right? and you are also aware that faith-based beliefs are not related to science, eh? well, that is all you need to know.

please try to be aware that your links to creationist websites are religious sites, not science sites. the arguments found at these sites is either wrong or misleading because it is based on a starting point of faith.

there is really nothing to argue here. anyone who argues against evolution is simply reminding everyone that he is irrational and has faith in creationism. and that of course is very stupid, but yunno, so be it. nothing to discuss really.