Is evolution proven science or theory

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Here's my issue with that view: when it comes to things like the molecular origins of life on earth, any agent that could have a hand in such things must be more powerful and intelligent that anything with which we are familiar. Therefore, we can have no clue as to how such an agent would act, no reasonable way to telling which of it's "preferences" is more likely than the other.

So, the emergence of life can't be reasonably judged to be more probable on the assumption that some kind of agent fiddled with laws or constants at critical periods.

This would all be so much easier if the Miller-Urey experiment remained valid, wouldn't it?

The Miller-Urey experiment is valid. The over interpretation and over-expectations of its results are what is invalid. The laws of nature are constant and inviolate. No tinkering with them is even possible let alone required. Understanding of them, on the other hand, is what is lacking.

[Trapper John]

(And please bear in mind that I'm referring to a rational, intelligent agent influencing the fundamental laws here.)

No intelligent being can "influence" the fundamental laws - only be constrained by them. They are inviolate and govern everything. We can only hope to understand them.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

At any rate, I think I'll stop the train here and say that what's been determined by this thread is that evolution is a theory and a fact, neither of which equates to "absolute certainty." It is also not going away because people debate rival theories to explain it. (Which, coincedentally, is a hallmark characteristic of facts.)

The theory of evolution makes no claim to perpetual truth, and we are very far from understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which it occured, but it has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

On that we can agree, Doc. Much, much more to learn.

[Surf n Turf]

Trapper John,
I generally understand the concept of ID, and "sort of" believe there is some guiding force at work in the universe. I am a skeptic of Darwinism / evolution, and reject the general thesis.
Having said that, I also am in awe of the size, complexity, and unknowns in this 12 - 14 billion year old universe. We have such limited understanding of this universe, that confounds any foundation of "fact", that we probably would err in applying any laws, theorems, or conjecture as "universal". As an agnostic in "current fact based science" I would question the following from your application of universal laws:
SnT

Originally Posted by Trapper John

The universality is based upon the observation that the basic organic building blocks for the chemistry of life are found in comets and meteors. If they exist there could they not also exist everywhere else. The basic elements are derived from stars

Didn't "Grateful Citizen" establish (in post #242) that nothing has entered our solar system from "stars".

Originally Posted by Trapper John

the laws of chemistry and physics that made them are laws everywhere in the universe. If they did not come from life (biotic) they must have arisen abioticly.

Again( not being hard headed) but you haven't made your case, you know this how ?

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise. However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur

----- HUH ???

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I contend that there are a finite number of suitable environs in which life can arise.

With an unknown number (but very, very large) of galaxies, finite number of "environs" only if you would consider some number like 666 to the 128 power to be finite.

Originally Posted by Trapper John

However, the length of time it takes for life to emerge and evolve into intelligent life (bear in mind that there is no driving force for intelligent life to emerge in the first place) presents infinite opportunities for mass extinction events to occur and we know that these catastrophic events do occur.

Wouldn't the obverse also apply -- i.e. infinite opportunities for intelligent life ?

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Our existence on this planet is finite and if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, the sun will ultimately strip away our protective atmosphere and this planet will be reduced a barren rock. So, yes, it is conceivable, even likely, that we are the only or most advanced intelligence in the universe.

Again, to my general theme, We do not know enough to form any knowledge calculus on the universe

Originally Posted by Trapper John

The humbling aspect of that thought has nothing to do with the solar system revolving around the earth.

I attempted (poorly) a little humor, alluding to a time when man had an over-inflated opinion of his omnificence.

[Trapper John]

SnT-I will try to field these in the order asked.

Didn't "Grateful Citizen" establish (in post #242) that nothing has entered our solar system from "stars".

True for the present day situation. However, all matter in the universe in "star stuff" to include, of course, the matter that comprises our solar system.

Again( not being hard headed) but you haven't made your case, you know this how ?

I don't know this for a certainty. But there are only 2 processes, biotic or abiotic (I like binary problems - keeps the math simple ). We stipulated, earlier, that these molecules did not arise from life (biotic). Experimental evidence shows that they do not necessarily need to arise from life.

----- HUH ???

and

With an unknown number (but very, very large) of galaxies, finite number of "environs" only if you would consider some number like 666 to the 128 power to be finite.

Even though the number may be large (but much smaller than you are suggesting, I think) it is still finite. The opportunities for catastrophic annihilation are infinite even if the manner of such events are limited.

Wouldn't the obverse also apply -- i.e. infinite opportunities for intelligent life ?

and

Again, to my general theme, We do not know enough to form any knowledge calculus on the universe

No! To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that if life arises that it must evolve into intelligent life. Moreover, the cynic would argue that the arrival of intelligent life will ultimately result in its self-destruction. Some days I believe there is a lot of truth to that point of view.

And you have just made my case, our knowledge is limited and that is our mission as humans - pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Again, two different things, having knowledge is meaningless and even dangerous without corresponding understanding.

Hope that was clarifying. [Just the opinions of a FOG]

[SFOC0173]

Originally Posted by Pete

Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Ba...d+the+big+bang

Gerald L Schroeder, Ph.D wrote "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible". It's worth reading, if you have an interest in the subject.

[Richard]

Debate tonight - I'll be interested in watching this one when it's posted on YouTube.

Richard

Bill Nye to Defend Evolution in Kentucky Debate
Time, 4 Feb 2014

Evolution, the Bible and the origin of the universe will be up for debate when “Science Guy” Bill Nye shares the stage with the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum.

Nye is in Kentucky to debate with Ken Ham on Tuesday evening.

The event is attracting plenty of attention in science and faith circles, as Nye is a former TV star and Ham is prominent among Christians who believe the Bible tells a factual account of the Earth’s beginnings.

The Creation Museum says the audience will be made up of visitors from 29 states, and the debate will be streamed live online.

Ham invited Nye to debate last year after Nye criticized the belief held by Ham and other creationists that the earth is just a few thousand years old.

http://science.time.com/2014/02/04/b...#ixzz2sN8ajh1t

[Pete]

I've said it before - since nobody knows how long one of God's days is they both might be right although Ham may be a lot off on the timeline.

[Lan]

Originally Posted by Richard

Debate tonight - I'll be interested in watching this one when it's posted on YouTube.

Richard

Bill Nye did an excellent job.

[spherojon]

I’m still trying to wrap my head around quantum mechanics. Specifically, with quantum coherence of electrons and protons within enzyme reactions in living cells, which has been suggested to help with protein formation (10,000 times a second). Well that and wave-particle duality…my point is, intelligent design.


Has anyone brought up Ancient Aliens theories yet? That show is entertaining to watch however. In my snuggie and tin foil hat.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Lan

Bill Nye did an excellent job.

Did you have your Bingo cards handy?

http://www.vocativ.com/02-2014/creat...ource=outbrain

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Looks like a win-win arrangement.

Ham gets publicity for his fund-raising business err... I mean his ministry.
Nye gets to beat up a straw man.

<edit>

This attitude may be a little cynical.
Still, something about the associated hype just makes it seem like these guys are more interested in personal agendas than their respective messages.

[Lan]

Originally Posted by Richard

Did you have your Bingo cards handy?

http://www.vocativ.com/02-2014/creat...ource=outbrain

Richard

Dang... I didn't know they existed...

Did you have issues with teachers omitting curriculum when it didn't fall in line with their beliefs?

I admire Ken Ham for the conviction in his beliefs, but I don't agree with them. With a preponderance of evidence to suggest Earth is more than 6000 years old, among other reasonable ideas that contradict his beliefs, there will always be people who think otherwise, and I don't think their beliefs cause harm to scientific progress. Bill Nye made a good point when he said the future of our economy depends on future engineers and scientists, but I think good scientists can be spiritual, or even indoctrinated into belief systems that may not change when they're educated about things that say otherwise.

You can be Christian and not take the words of the Bible literally, IMO. I believe God exists in the things science cannot explain, (where did the matter that caused the big bang come from?) I don't think we're the only intelligent beings that have existed, exist, or will exist.

[GratefulCitizen]

Regardless of what other theories or beliefs argue, evolution should stand or fall on its own merits.
Whenever evolution is subjected to skeptical scrutiny, proponents immediately invoke religion and attack it.

It always devolves into a straw-man argument.

[Streck-Fu]

All you need to know about Ham is that he wrote "The Dinosaurs of Eden" in which he depicted children in Eden playing with dinosaur pets and that he claims that dinosaur fossils were buried by Noah's flood. As a young Earth proponent, Ham doesn't even like the Intelligent Design proponents because they accept that the Earth is ~4 billion years old.

Illustrations from his book....

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...3f3fd110.L.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...414fd110.L.jpg

Anyone that holds Ham as the champion of their cause deserves the ridicule.